Court dismissed a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 CPC. The applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence or clear error on the record, and no interference was warranted against concurrent findings of inferior courts regarding a specific performance suit.
Review application dismissed. No order as to 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 :05.04.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
K.Natarajan
Vs.
1.N.M.Sivan 2.P.Parvathi
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w.Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 and made in S.A.No.865 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanayakumar
ORDER
This memorandum of Review Application is directed
under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w.Section 114 of CPC to review
the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 and made in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.865 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
2
4.It is manifested from the records that the review
applicant had filed the suit in O.S.No.573 of 2004 as against the respondents seeking the relief of specific performance of contract of sale in respect of the suit property. Having lost the suit before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court, the review applicant had filed the above said second appeal in S.A.No.865 of 2013.
5.After hearing both sides, this Court had proceeded to dismiss the second appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
3
6.It is the specific case of the first respondent
herein that his signature had been forged to make it appear that he had executed the sale agreement in respect of the
suit property. He had also specifically denied the signature find a place in Ex.A1 sale agreement. Rejecting the case of the review applicant/plaintiff, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had proceeded to dismiss the suit as well as the first appeal filed by the review applicant accepting the case of the first respondent/defendant. Now this review application has been filed by the review applicant after invoking the provisions of Order XLVII Ruel 1 r/w.Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order XLVII contemplates is that any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at
4
the time when the decree was passed or order made, on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
From the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due deligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made.
5
on the ingredients of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC, this Court finds that the review application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
05.04.2017
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes gpa
6
T.MATHIVANAN.J.,
gpa
Rev. Appl.No.84 of 2016 in S.A.No.865 of 2013
05.04.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conditions under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 CPC for a review application are satisfied.
Whether the lower courts' concurrent findings on forgery required interference in a review.
Whether the review application is meritless due to failure to disclose new evidence or sufficient grounds.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Natarajan
N.M.Sivan
P.Parvathi
T.MATHIVANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
