Dismissed

S.Vinotha v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Aug 2021CRL OP(MD)/126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w Section 114 CPC. The court held the application was an appeal in disguise, noting no patent error existed in the prior order allowing the transfer of a family custody petition to another district court.

What did the court decide?

Review application and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed at admission stage; no costs.

S.Vinotha Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN REV.APLC(MD)No.126 of 2021 in TR.CMP(MD)No.244 of 2021 AND CMP.(MD)No.9025 of 2021

¶3

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶4

Senthilkumar

¶5

...Applicant/petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Rajeswari

¶8

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Prayer:- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w. Section 114 CPC to review the order dated 27.07.2021 made in Tr.CMP(MD).No.244 of 2021.

¶10

Prayer in TR CMP(MD). 244/ 2021 :

¶11

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed Under Section 24 of the code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the Petition filed by the respondent in HMOP No.89/2021 on the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli District and Transfer the same to the Sub Court, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Vinodh

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The respondent in TR.CMP(MD)No.244 of 2021 has filed this review application for reviewing the order dated 27.07.2021 made in the above petition. The facts of the case has been narrated in detail in the order under review and hence, it is not necessary to restate the facts once again.

¶15

This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has allowed the petition and the applicant has filed this application seeking review of the said order dated 27.07.2021.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

The review application has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". The review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

¶18

The applicant under the guise of this review application https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wants to re-agitate the matter once again afresh and in the light of

¶19

1/2

¶20

¶21

the settled position of law, it is impermissible. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the order under review and this Court finds no merit in the review application and therefore, the review application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

¶27

1.The Judge, Family Court, Trichy.

¶28

2.The Subordinate Judge, Sudalur, Nilgiris District.

¶29

REV.APLC(MD)No.126 of 2021 in TR.CMP(MD)No.244 of 2021 AND CMP.(MD)No.9025 of 2021 11.02.2022

¶30

am(CO) TR(28.02.2022) 2P 3C

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

2/2

S.Vinotha v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vinotha v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Siva Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Irulappan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajasekarapandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Sachin Balakrishna Vs The Inspector of Police

Lakshmikandhan Vs The Inspector of Police