Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Amulammal on 10 March, 2022
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
against W.A.Nos.1435 of 2014 & 163 of 2015
and
C.M.P.Nos.17877 & 17883 of 2017
in Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
1.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Executive Engineer &
Administrative Officer,
TNHB Unit, Coimbatore, Tatabad,
Coimbatore District. ... Applicants
in both applications
Vs.
1.Amulammal
2.Rajendran
3.Jayamani
4.Rajalakshmi
5.Ravi Ganesh
6.Pavithra
7.Bagiyalakshmi
8.Amsaveni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
9.Balakrishnan
10.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
11.The District Collector,
Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore District.
12.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Schemes Unit,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12. ... Respondents
in Rev.Appl.No.183 of 2017
1.Sudha
2.Selvi
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
4.The District Collector,
Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme Unit-I,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12. ... Respondents
in Rev.Appl.No.189 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
Review Applications in Rev.Appl.Nos.183 and 189 of 2017 filed
under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to review the orders dated 26.02.2016 passed in W.A.Nos.1435 of
2014 and 163 of 2015 respectively.
For Applicants : Dr.R.Gowri
for Tamil Nadu Housing Board
in both applications
For R1 to R9 : Mr.R.N.Amarnath
in Rev.Appl.No.183 of 2017
For R10 to R12 : Mrs.D.Tamilselvi
Additional Government Pleader
in Rev.Appl.No.183 of 2017
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.N.Amarnath
in Rev.Appl.No.189 of 2017
For R3 to R5 : Mrs.D.Tamilselvi
Additional Government Pleader
in Rev.Appl.No.189 of 2017
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
These Review Applications have been filed to review the common
judgment passed in W.A.Nos.1435 of 2014 and 163 of 2015, dated 26.02.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
2.Dr.R.Gowri, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants,
fairly submitted that similar type of review application in Rev.Appl.No.194 of
2017, arising out of the common judgment dated 26.02.2016, was taken up by
this Court and after finding no merits therein, was dismissed by order dated
03.02.2022.
3.The relevant portion of the order, dated 03.02.2022, made in
Rev.Appl.No.194 of 2017 is extracted below :
“4.On a perusal of the grounds raised in the Review
Application, it could be seen that the applicants have not raised
any ground pointing out an error apparent on the face of the
record. As per the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, a Review Application can be entertained only if
there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Review
Application cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. It is also
settled position that the review applicants cannot re-argue the
appeal. In the case of the review applicants unable to point out
any error apparent on the face of the record as per the
provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
remedy open to the applicants is only to challenge the order
passed in the Writ Appeal by way of an appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. None of the grounds raised in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
Review Application points out any error apparent on the face of
the record warranting interference.
5.In these circumstances, the Review Application is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Application is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.”
4.In view of the above, since this Court has already dismissed the
review application arising out of the common judgment dated 26.02.2016,
citing the above reasons, we are unable to find any merits in these Review
Applications. Therefore, these Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.R., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
10.03.2022
(2/2)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme Unit,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Housing Scheme Unit-I,
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 12.
5.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 035.
6.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
TNHB Unit, Coimbatore,
Tatabad, Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
T. RAJA, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mkn
Review Application Nos.183 & 189 of 2017
10.03.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
