The High Court of Madras dismissed a review application filed by a party-in-person. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the record and ruled that a review cannot be used to re-adjudicate merits.
Review Application No.36 of 2021 stands 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09-09-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Review Application No.36 of 2021
in A.S.174/2017
K.Chellappan
...Appellant/Review Petitioner
vs.
1.Smt.M.Pancharani
2.M.Kasthuri
3.S.Lakshmi
4.S.Selvi
5.S.Sulochana ..Respondents/Respondents
Prayer:This Review Application is preferred under Order XLVII,
Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
review the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in
A.S.No.174 of 2017.
Prayer in A.S.No.174 of 2017: Appeal Suit is preferred under
section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure against the order
Decree dt.07.11.2016 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the
learned District Judge, District Court No.II Kancheepuram.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Chellappan
(Party-in-Person)
For Respondents: Mr.R.Sreedhar
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the party-in-person, argued the
Review Application at length by taking considerable length of
time.
2. The petitioner-in-person read over the grounds raised
in the Review Application in entirety.
3. Perusal of the grounds raised in the Review
Application would reveal that the petitioner could not able to
establish any error apparent on the record, enabling this Court
to consider the Review Application.
4. The scope of the review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be expanded, so as to re-
adjudicate the merits put forth by the petitioner in the Review
Application.
5. This Court considered the merits and delivered the
judgment and the grounds raised in the writ petition may be the
grounds for an appeal and not to review the judgment already
delivered.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the
Review Application by stating that the petitioner has raised the
grounds on merits and thus, the Review Application is not
entertained.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not
established any error apparent on record for the purpose of
considering the Review Application, this Court do not find any
other reason for the purpose of reviewing the judgment dated
20.12.2019 passed in A.S.No.174 of 2017.
8. Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
svn
To:
The District Judge,
District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.
+2cc to Mr.K.Chellappan Party in person,S.R.No.46038
Review Application No.36 of 2021
in A.S.174/2017
BS(CO)
B.Vc(21/09/2021)(28/09/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can establish any error apparent on the record to justify a review of the judgment.
Whether the scope of a review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC can be expanded to re-adjudicate the merits.
Whether the grounds raised by the petitioner are based on merits rather than errors apparent on record.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Chellappan
Smt.M.Pancharani
M.Kasthuri
S.Lakshmi
S.Selvi
S.Sulochana
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court