Madras High Court
G.Ramesh Murali vs K.Veeraputhiran on 6 October, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
2025:MHC:2316
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.121 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.121 of 2014
in
W.A.(MD)No.449 of 2014
G.Ramesh Murali ... Petitioner / Appellant
-vs-
1.K.Veeraputhiran
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate Office, Dindigul.
3.Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority,
Rep. by its District Sports Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul. ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of
Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 13.06.2014, passed in
W.A.(MD)No.449 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lingeswaran
for Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 and R3 : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.121 of 2014
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The Review Application has been filed by the appellant in W.A.
(MD) No.121 of 2014, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 13.06.2014, by which the Writ Appeal was allowed and a direction
was issued to the appellant (the applicant herein) to pay a sum of
Rs.6,03,500/- to the District Collector, Dindigul. This amount, according
to the District Collector, represented the deficit between the sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- offered by the first respondent and the sum of
Rs.13,96,500/- quoted by the review applicant herein. The Division
Bench directed that the said amount be deposited within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing which
the District Collector, Dindigul, was permitted to recover the same as
arrears of land revenue.
2. The Writ Appeal arose from an order in W.P.(MD)No.3716 of
2014, which had been filed by the first respondent in the nature of a Writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking production of the records of the
first respondent therein / District Collector, Dindigul, dated 03.01.2014,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
and a consequential direction to invite tenders for installing shops and a
variety entertainment gallery behind the Kottai Mariamman Temple,
Dindigul, during the Kottai Mariamman Masi Temple Festival.
3. In the Writ Petition, it was contended that the festival was to be
conducted during the Tamil month of Masi in the year 2014, for a period
of approximately three weeks. During the celebrations, a Trade Fair
would be held in a playground belonging to the Tamil Nadu Sports
Development Authority, Dindigul, situated just behind the Temple.
Several stalls and a Theme Park for children would be installed as part of
the entertainment activities. The writ petitioner / first respondent herein
had offered a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the right to install the Theme
Park and stalls, whereas the review applicant herein, who was the third
respondent in the Writ Petition, had offered only Rs.13,96,500/-. Despite
the lower offer, the District Collector awarded the contract to the review
applicant herein.
4. The Division Bench had taken note of the said fact and observed
that such an award amounted to an ''arbitrary grant'', resulting in a
revenue loss to the Government of at least Rs.6,00,000/-, being the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
difference between the two offers. Accordingly, it was held that it would
be appropriate for the review applicant to make good the deficit by
paying Rs.6,03,500/-. A time frame of two weeks from the date of receipt
of the judgment was granted for making the payment, failing which the
District Collector was permitted to recover the amount under the
provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.
5. The learned counsel for the review applicant has not pointed out
any specific error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised
in the Review Application primarily contain allegations against the bona
fides of the first respondent / writ petitioner. However, the Division
Bench had not adjudicated upon the personal merits of either party but
had confined its analysis to the amounts quoted for installation of the
Theme Park and stalls. It found that the first respondent had quoted
Rs.20,00,000/-, while the review applicant had quoted Rs.13,96,500/-,
and concluded that the lower bid resulted in a financial loss to the
Government.
6. It is trite law that a Review Application cannot be used as a tool
to re-argue or revisit issues already decided, nor can it serve as a
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
substitute for an appeal. A Review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own
judgment and reconsider the correctness thereof merely because another
view is possible. Any grievance with the judgment ought to have been
agitated by way of an appeal, not by invoking the review jurisdiction.
7. In Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others
reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-
''9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we fine
that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in
the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of
Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed
and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein
both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and
as such the case was covered by Article the scope of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous
decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While
the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can
be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing
the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision
dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without
saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned
order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature,
"Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons"
and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However,
mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract
from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review
jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and
circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved
judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum
through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J.
and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review
of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, appeal and set aside
the impugned order dated 6.3.1997.''
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
8. In T.Thimmaiah (dead) by Lrs. vs. Venkatachala Raju (dead)
Lrs., reported in (2008) 11 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:-
''2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for
the appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of the order in
review would reveal that it is based on a complete re-
appreciation of the matter on facts and the provisions of Order
47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure w hich would govern
an application for review, have been completely ignored. It has
been submitted by the counsel that the Single Judge had, in the
first Judgment, examined the facts and dismissed the appeal and
on a reconsideration of the same facts, had allowed the same,
which was not justified. We find merit in this plea. From a bare
perusal of the Judgment in review, it is clear that the principles
laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC have been completely
ignored. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order in
review dated 26.2.2001 liberty to the respondent herein to
challenge the Judgment dated 16.2.1999, if so advised.''
9. In Sivakami and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others
reported in (2018) 4 SCC 587, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-
''18. The scope of the appellate powers and the review
powers are well defined. The power of review under Order 47
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it
may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be
confused with the appellate power. The review
petition/application cannot be decided like a regular intra court
appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider
wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for
examination by the Appellate Court.
19. A fortiori, what was not decided in appeal by the
Division Bench could not be decided by the Division Bench
while deciding the review application. It is for this reason, we
are also constrained to set aside the review order.''
10. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely
applies to the present case. The review applicant cannot convert this
Court into an appellate forum to re-argue matters which ought to have
been raised in an appeal.
11. We find no merit in the Review Application. It stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. We maintain the directions issued by the Division Bench
regarding payment of Rs.6,03,500/-, and direct that the said amount shall
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, failing which the District Collector, Dindigul, is at liberty to
initiate proceedings for recovery as arrears of land revenue.
NCC : Yes [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
Index : Yes 06.10.2025
smn2
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate Office, Dindigul.
2.The District Sports Officer,
Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
smn2
in
06.10.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 02:37:26 pm )
