Madras High Court
M/S.Cee Dee Yes Housing And ... vs Regal Palm Garden Apartment Owners ... on 13 September, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
Rev. Aplw.No.101 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
Rev.Apln.No.101 of 2024
in
W.P.No.29823 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.29427 of 2023
1. M/s.Cee Dee Yes Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited,
(Formerly Cee Dee Yes Housing and Finance Ltd.,)
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.42, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai - 600 040.
2. M/s.Cee Dee Yes Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited,
(Formerly Cee Dee Yes Housing and Finance Ltd.,)
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.383, Velachery Tambaram Road,
Velachery, Chennai - 600 042.
3. C.Devadasasundaram ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Regal Palm Garden Apartment Owners Association,
Represented by its Secretary,
Mrs.Ahalyakumari.E
No.383, Velachery Tambaram Road,
Velachery, Chennai - 600 042.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Rev. Aplw.No.101 of 2024
2. M/s.Standard Fire Works Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
1/3, Thirthangal Road,
Sivakasi - 626 123.
3. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
4. The Housing Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5. The Sub-Registrar, Velachery,
O/o, the SRO Velachery,
Velachery, Chennai.
6. M/s.Cee Dee Yes Property Services,
No.42, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,
Chennai - 600 040.
7. Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Poonamallee High Road,
Chennai - 600 003. ..Respondents
PRAYER: The Review Application is filed under Section 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to
review the order dated 27.03.2024 in W.P.No.29823 of 2023 passed by this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
Rev. Aplw.No.101 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Jayaraman
For Respondents : Mr.Muralikumaran for R1
Mr.A.Sivaji for R4
Mr.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader for R5
Mr.E.C.Ramesh for R7
-----
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
The Review Application has been filed to review the order dated
27.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.29823 of 2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to the fifth respondent
to initiate action in pursuance to the notice dated 17.05.2018 in Letter
No.EC/S-II/9754/2017 and restore the property as per PP No.332 dated
02.05.2002 and take necessary action for the violations committed by the
respondents 1 to 4 along with the eighth respondent in violation of the said
sanctioned plan and PP No.332 of the fifth respondent. This Court, vide order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 27.03.2024 disposed of the Writ Petition holding that a single planning
permission having been obtained for construction of 9 blocks, any subsequent
sub-division effected, without the permission of all the owners, who had
purchased the undivided share, would be an illegal one and therefore, the fifth
respondent was directed accordingly.
4. Now, the present review application has been filed for reconsidering
the factual matrix pertaining to the Lock and Seal notice dated 17.05.2018
being the disputed fact before C.S.No.535 of 2019 on the file of this Court and
also in C.C.No.865 of 2020 before the NCDRC.
5. It is pertinent to note that in the decision of this court reported in
2018 (3) CTC 122 [D.Rajappa and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By
its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9] it is held that differing view
disturbing the finality of judgment is not permissible in review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the case on hand, there is no error apparent on the face of record to
review the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition. 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.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that no ground is made out
to review the order dated 27.03.2024. Consequently, Review Application is
dismissed. No costs.
[J.N.B., J.] [N.M., J.]
13.09.2024
asi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.MALA, J.
asi
To
1. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Housing Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Velachery,
O/o, the SRO Velachery,
Velachery, Chennai.
4. Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Poonamallee High Road,
Chennai - 600 003.
13.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
