Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamilnadu vs R.Subramaniyapandiyan on 3 April, 2025
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, R.Vijayakumar
C.M.P.(MD)No.16306 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.P.(MD)No.16306 of 2024
in
REV.APLC(MD)SRNo.77821 of 2024
and
REV.APLC(MD)SRNo.77821 of 2024
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3.The District Forest Officer,
District Forest Office,
Tirunelveli. ... Petitioner in both cases
-vs-
1.R.Subramaniyapandiyan
2.The Principal Accountant General of Tamilnadu,
Teynampet, Chennai – 18. ... Respondents in both cases
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/05/2025 01:56:49 pm )
C.M.P.(MD)No.16306 of 2024
Prayer : This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 245 days in filing the above
Review Petition against the order made in CMP(MD)No.14122 of 2023
in W.A.SR(MD)No.73643 of 2023, dated 18.01.2024.
Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Section 114 and Order 47
Rules 1 and 2 CPC to review the order passed by this Court in
CMP(MD)No.14122 of 2023 in W.A.SR(MD)No.73643 of 2023, dated
18.01.2024.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 245 days in
filing the Review Application against the order passed by this Court
C.M.P(MD)No.14122 of 2023 in W.A.(MD)SRNo.73643 of 2023, dated
18.01.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/05/2025 01:56:49 pm )
2.A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the review
application would go to show that the review applicant assails the
findings of this Court stating that the judgment is vitiated.
3.The argument of the learned Counsel for applicant/review
petitioner is that this Court should re-open the findings recorded in the
judgment under review.
4.It is made clear here that review jurisdiction cannot be used for
that purpose. This is not the scope of Section 114 read with Order 47
Rule 1 CPC. Power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake but not to substitute a view.
5.The review is also not an appeal in disguise. In the considered
view of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting review of judgement dated 18.01.2024. If the petitioners are
aggrieved, they can file an appeal and work out the remedy in the manner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/05/2025 01:56:49 pm )
known to law. This Court in exercise of review jurisdiction, without
sufficient and just reasons, cannot review its own judgment.
6.Further, the averments made in the supporting affidavit are bereft
of sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 245 days in
filing the Review Application, which would clearly exhibits lethargic
attitude on the part of the petitioners, as such the petitioners are not
entitled to indulgence of this Court.
7.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected REV.APLC(MD)SRNo.77821 of 2024 is
rejected at SR stage itself.
(J.N.B., J.) (R.V, J.)
03.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/05/2025 01:56:49 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/05/2025 01:56:49 pm )
