The Court dismissed the review application filed under O. 47 R. 1 CPC as there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant the review of the prior order rejecting the petitioner's challenge against a demolition notice.
Review Application 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.
Rev.Appl.No.119 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Review Application (Writ) No.119 of 2022
1.K.Ravi
2.P.Santhosh
.. Review Petitioners
Versus
4.The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam-Egmore Taluk, Chennai District.
5.T.Sethuraman .. Respondents
Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.6652 of 2022.
1/4
Rev.Appl.No.119 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For R1 and R4 : Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Govt. Pleader For R2 and R3 : Mr.A.Arunbabu, Corporation of Chennai For R5 : Mr.V.Jai Harisudhan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Writ petitioners have filed this review petition to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6652 of 2022, dated 26.04.2022, by which, the prayer of the writ petitioners challenging the impugned notice dated 28.02.2022 directing them to remove the construction raised on the road belonging to the Greater Chennai Corporation was rejected.
2/4
Rev.Appl.No.119 of 2022
the review is permissible only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. But, in
the case on hand, no ground is made out in the affidavit filed in support of the review application to review the order passed by this Court. Therefore, finding no error apparent on the face of record, we are inclined to dismiss the review application and accordingly, it is dismissed. No Costs.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 11.11.2022
rkm
To
2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ribon Building, Chennai – 3.
4.The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam-Egmore Taluk, Chennai District.
3/4
Rev.Appl.No.119 of 2022
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. rkm
Review Application (Writ) No.119 of 2022
11.11.2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review application is maintainable when no error apparent on the face of the record is shown on the affidavit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Ravi
P. Santhosh
The District Collector, Chennai District
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation
The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam-Egmore Taluk
T. Raja
D. Bharchatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
