Madras High Court
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar vs A.Thirugnanasambandam on 13 July, 2023
CRP No.3384 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
CRP No.3384 of 2019
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar ... Petitioner
Vs
A.Thirugnanasambandam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 25.04.2019 made in
I.A.SR.No.4001 of 2019 in O.S.No.622 of 2005 on the file of Additional
District Munsif Court, Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.T.K.S.Muthukumaran
for Mr.N.V.N.Margandeyan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed in
unnumbered I.A.SR.No.4001 of 2019 in O.S.No.622 of 2005 on the file of
Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3384 of 2019
2. The revision petitioner before me is the plaintiff in the suit.
Claiming to be a hereditary trustee, he presented a suit for ejectment. After
receiving written statement and after full trial, the suit was dismissed on
19.02.2019. Immediately, a review was filed on 08.04.2019 and the review
petition was also dismissed. The learned Judge did not find any error
apparent on the face of the record. Challenging the same, the present
revision has been filed.
3. Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought
to the notice of this Court the case laws in (i) Board of Control for Cricket
in India and Another vs Netaji Cricket Club and Others (2005) 4 SCC
741 (ii) T.Manickam vs C,Suthanthiram, CRP (PD)No.647 of 2008
dated 02.04.2008 and (iii) P.Paranthaman vs Munirathinam, CRP
(NPD)No.3260 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009 and would urge that the learned
District Munsif has the power of review and hence he ought to have
reviewed the judgment and set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3384 of 2019
4. Condition precedent for review is on an error apparent on the face
of the record. In this case, when there is no error apparent, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff wanted the Court to treat it as such and decide as if
it is a court of appeal and decide the matter accordingly. A review is not an
appeal in disguise. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by the learned District
Munsif.
5. Turning to the judgments, in the case of Board of Control for
Cricket in India and Another vs Netaji Cricket Club and Others (2005) 4
SCC 741, in paragraph No.88, the Apex Court has laid down the scope of
Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. As already discussed, the learned
Judge has gone into the merits of the petition and held that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record and therefore, he has not exercised the
power of review. Hence the judgment is inapplicable.
6. The second decision relied upon is an order passed in T.Manickam
vs C.Suthanthiram, CRP (PD)No.647 of 2008 dated 02.04.2008. In that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3384 of 2019
case, the learned District Munsif kept returning the review petition on the
ground of no review is maintainable before the Munsif. There is a
difference between returning the petition and rejecting the petition for
review. Here is a case before me the petition has not been returned, but has
been rejected on the ground that no grounds have been made out for
reviewing of the judgment. Therefore, the order passed in T.Manickam
vs C,Suthanthiram CRP (PD)No.647 of 2008 dated 02.04.2008, relied
upon by the learned counsel, is not applicable to this case.
7. Finally, the learned counsel would attempt to take the benefit of
the order passed in P.Paranthaman vs Munirathinam, CRP
(NPD)No.3260 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009. This Court had taken note of the
fact that at the time of hearing the review, learned counsel for the petitioner
was not heard. The court had straight away passed the order on the merits of
the case. Hearing of the counsel for parties is essential because no party is
going to be in a position to find out what is the error apparent on the face of
the record. Fortunately, in this case, the parties were heard and only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3384 of 2019
thereafter, the application was rejected. Therefore, I have no other option
than to confirm the order passed in I.A.SR.No.4001 of 2019 in O.S.No.622
of 2005. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner had moved review
immediately on pronouncing of judgment on 08.04.2019. He has been
bonafidely pursuing the matter from 08.04.2019 till 13.07.2023. The review
petitioner is always free to file an appeal against the decree.
8. Insofar as the delay is concerned, if an appropriate application is
filed before the Court below, it shall take into consideration of the fact that
from 08.04.2019 till 13.07.2023, the revision petitioner was bonafidely
pursuing this remedy and therefore, the said period could be excluded for
the purpose of numbering the appeal.
9. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
No costs.
13.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3384 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
sr
To
The Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur
CRP No.3384 of 2019
13.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
