Madras High Court
B.Selvi ... Review vs P.Poolpandian on 29 March, 2022
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
In Rev.Aplc(MD)No.73 of 2013
B.Selvi ... Review Applicant / Respondent
Vs.
P.Poolpandian ... Respondent / Appellant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of
C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree passed in S.A.No.795 of
2012, dated 07.01.2013 insofar clause 2 of the decree is concerned by
allowing the review application.
For Review Applicant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
In Rev.Aplc(MD)No.64 of 2022
P.Poolpandian ... Petitioner / Appellant
Vs.
B.Selvi ... Respondent / Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of
C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 07.01.2013 made in S.A.(MD)No.795
of 2012 passed by this court by allowing this revision petition.
For Review Applicant : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam
COMMON ORDER
The judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in S.A.No.795 of
2012 are sought to be reviewed both by the appellant as well as the
respondent.
2. The respondent in the second appeal namely B.Selvi filed
O.S.No.174 of 2008 on the file of the second Additional District Munsif
Court, Tirunelveli for declaring that she is having joint right in the
second schedule pathway and for consequential permanent injunction
restraining Poolpandian / the defendant from interfering with her right.
She also wanted the encroachments in the second schedule to be
removed. The suit was decreed on 07.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendant filed A.S.No.109 of 2011 before the Principal Sub Court,
Tirunelveli. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the decision of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated
24.04.2012. Challenging the same, S.A.No.795 of 2012 was filed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
second appeal was also dismissed on 07.01.2013. Poolpandian had filed
the Review Application (MD) No.64 of 2022 seeking review of the same.
The respondent in the second appeal namely Selvi has also filed a
Review Application (MD)No.73 of 2013 seeking limited clarification.
3. I went through the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers.
It is seen that the dispute was only regarding the pathway right.
The plaintiff alleged that the sunshade put up by the defendant is causing
interference. He also alleged that the doors of the windows are opening
out towards pathway. However, while decreeing the suit, the courts
below had directed the removal of the windows. In fact, this was never
the prayer of the plaintiff herself. I now clarify that windows have not
been ordered to be removed. Only the doors of the windows along with
the other encroachments committed by the defendant will have to be
removed.
4. Likewise, the direction that the plaintiff shall not discharge
water from his house by way of using the suit second schedule will have
to be clarified. At present, the plaintiff is letting out the drainage water
through underground pipeline. The underground pipeline runs beneath
the suit second schedule pathway and it is connected with the corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/4
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
Rmi
drainage. The plaintiff apprehends that this may be misinterpreted by
the other side. I clarify that laying of the underground drainage pipe
beneath the suit pathway by the plaintiff will not fall within the
prohibitory direction given by this Court while passing the order under
review. The order under review does not suffer from any error apparent
on the face of the record.
5. With this clarification, both the Review Applications are
dismissed.
29.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.73 of 2013 & 64 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
