The High Court of Madras dismissed a review application filed against an interlocutory order in a C.R.P. holding it an attempt to re-argue the case on changed counsel with no apparent error.
Review Application dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :17.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
R.A.No.170 of 2014
(CRP NPD 1658 of 2014)
R.Govindan
... Applicant
Vs.
1.V.Nataraja Reddiar (Deceased)
2.Rajalakshmi
3.Vasudevan
4.Chendrasekar
6.Mallilka
7.Durairaj
9.Jayanthi
[Petitioners 2 to 9 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased appellant vide order of Court dated 13.03.2012 made in CMP No.252 of 2012]
10.The Assistant Commissioner
(Land Reforms)
Tiruchirappalli.
.. Respondents
Prayer : Review Application has been filed against the order dated 10.08.2012 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1658 of 2004.
For Applicant : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : R1 Died Mr.M.Rajaraman - R2-R9
2
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant and Mr.M.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 o 9.
2.This Review Application has been filed to review the order and direction issued by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1658 of 2004 dated 10.08.2012.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record including the grounds of review, it is evidently clear that the petitioner is attempting to re-argue the entire case once over again. Hence, the question of entertaining a Review Application does not arise, moreso, when the learned counsel for the Review Applicant is not able to point out any error which is apparent on the face of the record. Further more, change of counsel is no ground to entertain the Review Application.
4.Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
17.02.2016
rpa
To
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Tiruchirappalli.
3
T.S.SIVAGNANAM J, rpa
R.A.No.170 of 2014
17.02.2016
R. Govindan
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Tiruchirappalli
T.S. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
