Madras High Court
M.Balu vs Ponnammal on 24 March, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.P(MD)No.6143 of 2020
in
Review Application (MD).No.41379 of 2020
1.M.Balu
2.Maruthayammal
3.R.Vijayalakshmi
4.S.Soundararajan
5.S.Boominathan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Ponnammal
2.A.P.Leelakrishnan
3.M.Singarayar
4.P.Varadaraj
5.Bakkiam Ammal
6.Dakshyani
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Radha Ammal
8.Tangam @ Theivanai
9.M.Rameela
10.P.Aarammal
11.V.Nacharammal
12.P.Sakunthala
13.V.Nammalawar
14.N.Purushothaman
15.N.Subramanian
16.P.Venkataraman
17.P.Govindaraj
18.A.Michael Pillai
19.N.Jawahar
20.A.Amaravel
21.K.Valarmathi
22.B.Padmalatha .. Respondents/respondents
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer in C.M.P(MD).No.6143 of 2020: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition
filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1098 days
in filing the above Review Application.
Prayer in Review Application(MD).No.41379 of 2020:- This Review
Application filed under Section 114 of Cr.P.C r/w order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C,
to review the judgment and decree of this Court dated 18.09.2017 made in
S.A.No.258 of 2001 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000
made in A.S.No.38 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 made in
O.S.No.1472 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Dindigul and to dismiss the suit with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam
for Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.R.Jameel Arasu
for R1
R2 to R22-Given up(Vide EB)
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1098 days in
fling the above Review Application.
2. This Court, by judgment, dated 18.09.2017, dismissed the
Second Appeal in S.A.No.258 of 2001. Aggrieved over the said dismissal
judgment, the petitioner has filed the Special Leave Petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.5546 of 2018 and the same was also
dismissed on 09.03.2018 and also confirmed the judgment and decree
passed in S.A.No.258 of 2001, dated 18.09.2017.
3. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
4. A perusal of records shows that the respondent herein has filed
a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.18268 of 2019 directing the revenue
authority to issue separate patta in his favour. The observation made in the
writ petition that the plaintiff in the suit has got the patta in S.No.135/3
instead of S.No.135/C.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme has dismissed
S.L.P.No.5546 of 2018 on 09.03.2018 and the petitioner has not given any
sufficient reason to condone the delay of 1098 days in filing the above
Review Application, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition. If the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the revenue
proceedings in respect of patta or in respect of order passed in the special
jurisdiction or writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is always open to the
petitioner to seek relevant remedy before the concerned Court by filing
appropriate application.
6. In view of the said liberty, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
24.03.2022
tta
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J
tta
C.M.P(MD).No.6143 of 2020
in
REV. APLC(MD).No. SR 41379 of 2020
24.03.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
