The High Court dismissed a review application, holding that it cannot be used to re-argue a first appeal or cure a failure to bring a witness. There was no error on the face of the record.
Review petition dismissed with 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: 27.02.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application No.43 of 2018
M.Thanasekaran ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Mayilambal
2. Kalpana
3. Kalaiselvi
4. Muthuswaminathan (deceased)
Rep. By his L.R.s
5. Anbu Nilavan
6. Arul Thiru Murugan ... Respondents
Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 03.01.2017 passed in AS. No.630 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.
For Review Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam for Mr.BFS Legal
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Natarajan
J U D G M E N T
This Review Application has been filed for seeking review of the
judgment 03.01.2017 passed in AS. No.630 of 2007.
2
The attempt that is now being made is to re-argue the First Appeal in the form of Review. The claim of the second defendant before the trial Court with reference to the suit, second item of the property was that the land belongs to the Sri Sivaloganatha Swamy Devasthanam and it was taken on lease by late Muthukrishnan and it was the the 2nd defendant, who had put up the construction in the property at his own cost. The said claim was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the 2nd defendant had not entered the witness box to prove his case, and it was also confirmed by me.
27.02.2018
jv
3
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
The Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry at Karaikal.
4
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
Jv
Review Application No.43 of 2018
27.02.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Review Application can be used to re-argue a case as a First Appeal when the claim was not projected before.
Whether there is an error visible on the face of the record in the impugned judgment rejecting the 2nd defendant's claim.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Thanasekaran
Mayilambal
Kalpana
Kalaiselvi
Anbu Nilavan
Arul Thiru Murugan
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
