Single‑judge High Court dismissed review petition under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114, holding it was not maintainable to re‑argue merits. However directed trial court to dispose suits in six months.
Review application dismissed as not maintainable; trial court directed to dispose both suits within six months of receipt of this order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Review Application No.6 of 2015
in
C.R.P.(PD)No.4473 of 2014
Chidambaram Taluk.
vs.
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. against the order passed by this Court
dated 28.11.2014 in C.R.P.(PD).No.4473 of 2014 against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.10.2014 made in I.A.No.312 of 2014 in O.S.No.165 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.
For Applicants : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
O R D E R
This Review Application is filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.4473/2014 dated 28.11.2014.
another Court. Needless to say that after the said order was passed in the year 2008 and when the suits were listed before the District Munsif Court, an application was filed in the year 2014 seeking for joint trial and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the District Munsif Court has allowed such application. When such being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not justified in harping upon the word 'simultaneously'. In any event, the word 'simultaneously' can also be construed as a joint trial. Considering all the facts and circumstances I do not find any ground to review the order already passed. As a last submission the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court may be directed to dispose of both the suit within the time frame. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed as not maintainable.
s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
+1 CC to Mr.A. Thiagarajan, Advocate sr 40130.
Review Application No.6 of 2015
CA(CO) SP(03/07/2018)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be allowed to re-argue the merits of a dismissed civil revision petition after the same contentions were already rejected.
Whether the word 'simultaneously' used in a transfer order mandates that a later application for joint trial should be rejected.
Whether it is appropriate to direct the trial court to dispose of pending suits within a specific time frame in a review jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhuvanagiri Varthagar Sangam @ Boorasamy varthagar Sangam
R.Sriraman
Bhuvanagiri Varthagar Sangam
Ponnachi Ammal
K.Ravichandrabaabu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
