The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition filed against a Second Appeal judgment. The Court held that the petition failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason for review, deeming the grounds to be a republication of old arguments.
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: 22.07.2021
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
Review Petition No.91 of 2019
against S.A.Nos.933 of 2013
-Vs-
Prayer : Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1, r/w. 114 of C.P.C against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by this Court in S.A.No.933 of 2013.
Prayer in SA No.933 of 2013: This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure code to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 24/11/2012 made in AS No.18/2012 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 30/04/2008 made in OS No. 33/08 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur.
For petitioners ... Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, A.G. assisted by Mr.A.E.Ravichandran,
G.A (CS) For Respondents ... Mr.V.Venkateseshan for Mr.V.Illanchezian
The above review application is filed to review the judgment dated 28.03.2016 passed in S.A.No.933 of 2013.
oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and D.W.1 and Exhibits A1 to A14 and B1 and B2, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had proved their possession as well as title to the property.
been arrayed as defendants 1 and 2, had not chosen to file the written statement. In fact, the defendants have filed the additional documents in the form of the settlement register and an SLR as Exhibits B3 and B4 before the lower appellate Court, namely, the Sub Court, Ariyalur. It also appears that evidence had been taken in the appellate Court where the plaintiffs had also marked Exhibits A15 to A18 and the documents filed on the side of the defendants appears to have been marked by consent. The third defendant had not got into the box to mark these documents. Now in the review additional documents in the form of a typed set of papers have been filed. However, no petition has been filed to receive these documents as additional evidence. This Court has therefore not considered the same. The only basis on which the review has been filed is on the ground of fraud.
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
"11. The Hon'ble Court ought to have taken into consideration the contention of the learned Government Advocate (CS) of the appellants to the effect that the suit itself is barred U/s.15 of the
Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986). The Hon'ble High Court would have considered that Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 15 of the above Act does not operate as a bar for the respondent to file the concerned suit."
This is the first substantial question of law that was answered by this Court in the judgment under review.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srn
To:
Review Petition No.91 of 2019 against S.A.Nos.933 of 2013
NR(CO)
LS(03/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grounds are merely a re-argument of old contentions without error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether alleged fraud constitutes a valid ground for review where it is not substantiated in the grounds of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sow Chandra Kanta and Another v. Sheik HabibReferred¶34
Sow Chandra Kanta and Another vs. Sheik Habib 1975 (1) SCC 674 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and othersRelied on¶35
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320 · Who else cites this
Chhajju Ram v. NekiReferred¶41
Chhajju Ram v. Neki (1921-22) 49 IA 144
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose AthanasiusReferred¶41
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.Referred¶43
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337 · Who else cites this
District Collector, Ariyalur
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur
Tahsildar, Ariyalur
Durai Raj
Kalavathi
P.T.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
