K.Pandian ...Review vs R.Backialakshmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 3610 Mad

                                                                                    REV.APLC.(MD)No.25 of 2023


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 31.03.2023

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                                REV.APLC.(MD) No.25 of 2023

                K.Pandian                                              ...Review Applicant/Respondent

                                                            Vs.
                1.R.Backialakshmi
                2.R.Rengaraj
                3.R.Rajaram
                4.R.Senthikumar
                5.R.Muthuselvan
                6.R.Muthuselvi
                7.R.Muthulakshmi                                       ...Respondents/Appellants

                PRAYER: This Review Application is filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47
                Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment and decree dated
                23.01.2020 passed in A.S.(MD)No.153 of 2008 on the file of this Court and set
                aside the same.
                                          For Petitioner   : Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha
                                          For R6 to R7     : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu


                                                           ORDER

This review application is filed seeking to review the judgment and

decree of this Court dated 23.01.2020 made in A.S.(MD)No.153 of 2008.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLC.(MD)No.25 of 2023

2.Though several grounds have been raised in the review petition, all had

been given up and only some additional grounds have been raised to review the

judgment. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the review applicant

is that in the absence of any pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, the

Court ought not to have framed the point for consideration as to readiness and

willingness. The second aspect is that the defendant had set up adverse title to the

vendor and the Court had accepted the view, which is also not permissible under

law and the third ground is that the agreement is valid. Only on these three

grounds, the entire judgment is sought to be reviewed.

3. On perusal of the very grounds itself, this Court is of the view that the

review applicant seeks to achieve what he could not achieve by way of filing an

appeal against the judgment rendered by this Court. Merely the Court had framed

the point of readiness and willingness for consideration, it cannot be stated that

there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 16 of the Specific

Relief Act before the amendment contemplates that 'the plaintiff must aver

performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to

its true construction.' In respect of other aspects, this Court had gone into the

merits of the matter and decided the issue based on the evidence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLC.(MD)No.25 of 2023

4. In such view of the matter, in the absence of any error apparent on the

face of the record, the review cannot be entertained mechanically. If such type of

review application is entertained, it will be just like siting over the own judgment

by the same Court as an appellate court, which leads to serious complications.

5.For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this

review application and accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No

costs.

31.03.2023 Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No ta

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLC.(MD)No.25 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ta

REV.APLC.(MD) No.25 of 2023

31.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis