Madras High Court
Anitha ..Review vs G. Kannan on 26 June, 2023
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
REVIEW APPLICATION (C)(MD) No. 44 of 2023
Anitha ..Review Petitioner
Vs.
G. Kannan ..Respondent
Prayer: Review Petition filed to review the judgment and decree dated
08.12.2021 passed in C.M.A.(MD) No. 273/2017.
For Review Petitioner :: Ms. Jagadeswari for
Mr.K. Baalasundharam
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN)
The respondent wife, who suffered a decree of divorce by order of
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
this Court dated 08.12.2021, has preferred this review petition with a delay
of 331 days. The delay was condoned and after numbering, the review
petition is taken up and disposed of on merits as hereunder.
2. The specific ground raised in the review petition is that
subsequent to the order passed by the Family Court, the spouses have united
and living as husband and wife in their native place and the same was not
brought to the notice of this Court when the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
came up for disposal.
3. The above said ground raised in the review petition is per se
false and amounts to perjury. When the C.M.A was taken up for final
hearing, after hearing the submissions made by the counsel on either side,
this Court, to explore the possibility whether the parties were willing for a
reunion, summoned them to appear before this Court. On their appearance,
after interacting with them, this Court had made the following observations,
which are self-explanatory:
"6. After hearing the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this Court, in order to
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
ascertain as to whether really there is any possibility for
reunion, requested the parties to appear before this Court in
person. While we interacting with them, they made
allegations and counter allegations against each other. For
every documents filed in the proceedings, the other side has
some explanation / reasons for execution of the same. But,
the fact remains that in spite of several attempts made to
compromise, the respondent is not inclined to withdraw her
prceedings whatever she has initiated against the appellant,
but she wants to live with the appellant. The appellant is
ready to forego everything, but not willing to join the
respondent."
While the fact being so, now a new case is sought to be projected in
the review petition contrary to the facts, which has been observed by this
Court after interacting with the parties.
4. 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 and
in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows:
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
“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,
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
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.”
5. Hence, the review petition fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (Dr.G.J.J.)
nv 26.06.2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc (MD) No. 44 of 2023
AND
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J.
nv
Review Application(C) (MD)
No. 44 of 2023
26.06.2023
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
