Madras High Court

The Managing Director vs P.Jeyaraman on 4 March, 2025

                                                                                      Rev.Aplc(MD).No.132 of 2024


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 04.03.2025

                                                         CORAM

                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI



                                           Rev.Aplc(MD).No.132 of 2024
                                                               in
                                            C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022
                  The Managing Director,
                  Dindigul District Central,
                  Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
                  Kooturavu Nagar, Dindigul.
                                                                                           ...Petitioner
                                                     Vs.
                  1. P.Jeyaraman
                      S/o. Periyasamy
                      Assistant General Manager,
                     Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank


                  2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
                     No.1, State Bank Colony,
                     Nehruji Nagar                                                         …Respondents


                  Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w

                  1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )
                                                                                            Rev.Aplc(MD).No.132 of 2024


                  Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the judgment dated
                  29.09.2023 in C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022.


                                             For Review Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
                                             For Respondent                   : Mr.T.Thirumurugan for R1


                                                                 ORDER

This Review Application is preferred against the order dated

29.09.2023 in C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022 by this Court.

2.In the review application, it is submitted that, the petitioner is the

managing Director of Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., (herein after

'Bank'), Dindigul. This review petition is filed to review the order passed in

C.R.P.(MD).No.2232/2022 dated 29.09.2023 confirming the order of the

Appellate Co-operative Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul, in

C.M.A(CS) No.20/2019 dated 08.02.2022. The learned counsel for the review

petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Bank suffered huge loss due to

misdeeds of its employees including the 1st respondent herein. Hence, action

has been initiated against the wrong doers to recover the public money from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )

their assets and other sources. While so, this Court in the revision petition has

held that there is no wilful negligent on the part of the 1st respondent which

requires reconsideration by this Court. It is further submitted that the 1st

respondent during his tenure as Assistant General Manager of the said Bank

failed to scrutinize the defective loan applications to the self help groups, for

which surcharge proceedings were initiated against him. In the surcharge

proceedings, the 1st respondent was also held responsible for the loss incurred

by the said Bank. Hence, the present review petition is filed to review the

order passed in C.R.P.No.2232 of 2022.

3.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent submits that, only in the following cases review is maintainable:

'' (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him.

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.''

4.To support his contention he has relied upon on the guidelines in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )

the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others reported in CDJ 2013

SC 701

5.Hence, submitted that the review petition is not maintainable.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to

review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the

record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process

of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the

record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47

Rule 1 CPC; it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ''reheard and

corrected'', review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be

an ''appeal in disguise''. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which have already been

addressed and decided.

8.In the cited case, the grounds of review which are maintainable

and not maintainable has been clearly stipulated, and the same is extracted as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )

hereunder:

'' 16.Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

A) When the review will be maintainable:- (1) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him,

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors, (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )

B) When the review will not be maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 06:32:27 pm )

relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived

9.Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of

the petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out for interference

exercising review jurisdiction.

10.This Court in the order dated 29.09.2023 Cr.P.No.2232 of 2022

clearly observed that there is no wilful default on the part of the 1st

respondent. The support affidavit of the review petition is nothing but only a

repetition of old argument, which is not enough to reopen concluded

adjudication. Moreover, no material error manifested on the face of record.