The single-judge Bench dismissed a review application filed to condone delay. The court held that since the merits of the review were addressed and the review could not be entertained, allowing condonation of delay would serve no useful purpose.
No relief; review application and delay condonation were rejected.
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
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Dated : 19.07.2019
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH
WMP.(MD) No.6748 of 2019 in Review Application (MD) SR. No.27498 of 2019 in
W.P.(MD) No.5146 of 2018
A.Livingston
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the Review Petition.
Prayer in Review Application (MD) SR. No.27498 of 2019:
Revies petition filed under order 47 Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 114 of CPC., praying to Review the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 31.07.2018 in WP(MD).No.5146/2018 and set aside the same.
Prayer in WP(MD). 5146/ 2018 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing to the respondents pass the order to return the registered sale deed No.1269 of 2012 dated 30/03/2012 on payment of Rs.4080/- for Registration charges without insisting the next day increased registration charges of Rs.1,44,000/- within the time stipulated time as this Court.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramamurthy For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Registration)
O R D E R
This matter has been heard through Video Conferencing today. Heard Mr.K.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Registration) appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3
Consequently, the Review Application filed by the petitioner in Rev. Aplw (MD) SR.27498 of 2019 stands rejected.
| Sd/- | ||
|---|---|---|
| // True Copy // | Assistant Registrar (CS-III) | |
| Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) | ||
| To | ||
| 1. |
The Edalakudi Sub-Registrar, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. |
|
| 2. |
The Special Deputy Collector Tirunelveli. |
(Bond), |
| 3. |
The Inspector General of Regi President of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28. |
stration, |
Order made in WMP.(MD) No.6748 of 2019 in Rev.Appl.(MD) SR. No.27498 of 2019 in W.P.(MD) No.5146 of 2018 19.07.2019
DP/AAV AE/(13.08.2019) 3P 4C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing a review petition should be condoned when the merits of the review are already addressed.
Whether a review petition can be entertained when the underlying writ petition was dismissed with liberty to challenge a subsequent order.
Whether there is a ground for review when the writ court had already concluded that the order under challenge was confirmable by the third respondent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.Livingston
The Edalakudi Sub-Registrar, Kanyakumari
The Special Deputy Collector (Bond), Tirunelveli
The Inspector General of Registration, President of Registration
M.S.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
