Madras High Court
Mrs. Senthilvadivu vs Sri Palamalai Ranganathaswamy on 11 December, 2023
Author: S. Vaidyanathan
Bench: S. Vaidyanathan
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
1. Mrs. Senthilvadivu
2. Mrs. Radha ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. Sri Palamalai Ranganathaswamy
Temple, rep. by its Fit Person,
Sri Karana Vinayakar Temple,
Matyhampalayam,
Coimbatore Taluk.
2. The Asst. Settlement Officer,
Office of the Commissioner and
Director of Survey and
Settlement,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore.
4. The Asst. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Administration Department,
1\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
Coimbatore – 18.
5. Mrs. Bhoopathi ..Respondents
Prayer: Review Application to review the common order dated
19.10.2023 in STA No. 2/2018 amd CRP 164/2019.
For Petitioners :: Mr.Om Prakash,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.K.K. Sivasshanmugam
K.S. Sri Giri Prasath
Umayal Muthaiah
SSP Law Associates
For Respondents :: Mr.A. Selvendran,
Special Government Pleader for
R2 & R3
Mr.N.R.R. Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader (HR
&CE) for R1 & R4
ORDER
(Made by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The review application is filed to reviewe the order dated 19.10.2023
passed in STA No. 2 of 2018 and CRP No. 164/2019.
2. The foremost plea, amongst other grounds, taken by the learned
Senior Counsel for the Review Applicants is that no copy of the award was
served on the Review Applicants and that they are unaware of the patta
2\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
issued in favour of the Temple.
3. The aforesaid contention of the Review Applicants, besides
being far from imagination, cannot be accepted for the reason that the father
of the first respondent and his cousin brother had represented the Temple at
the time of issuance of patta in favour of the Temple. Further, there was no
delay noticed in serving the award on the parties, which has been duly
observed in Paragraph Nos.13 & 14 of the judgment under review. The
arguments advanced on the side of the review applicants will clearly indicate
that the main writ appeal is sought to be reargued instead of pointing out
any error apparent on the face of the record.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 1406 Review Petition(Civil)No.1620 of 2023 in Civil
Appeal No.1661 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer
and another) in paragraph No.16 has laid down the law relating to the
entertainment of review application which is extracted as follows:
“16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
3\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it
necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to
exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
“reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not
require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision /
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be
regarded as a ground for review.”
5. Furthermore, in R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review
Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided
on 25.04.2018, one of us (SVNJ) elaborately discussed the scope of review
4\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows:
“7.The basic principle to entertain the review under
Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to
substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be
reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and
conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a
judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it
cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers
of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot
look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own
judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in
the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without
altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review;
the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the
merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different
view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot
be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is
ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice
and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on
the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.
8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision
cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the
first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition
is that the order under review of which is sought, suffers from
any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of
any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot
be disturbed.”
6. Hence, for the reasons aforestated, the review application
stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
5\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
nv 11.12.2023
To
1. The Asst. Settlement Officer,
Office of the Commissioner and
Director of Survey and
Settlement,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore.
3. The Asst. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Administration Department,
Coimbatore – 18.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
6\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
Review Application No. 218 of 2023
11.12.2023
7\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
