Two review applications challenging orders dismissing revision petitions regarding civil suits and execution proceedings were dismissed for deciding no new grounds were raised or error apparent existed.
Review applications Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022 are dismissed. 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.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
Rev.Aplc.No.215 of 2022:
Lakshmi Ammal ...Petitioner Vs
1.Nalina Ammal 2.Kalyan Kumar 3.The Inspector of Police, Vikravandi PS Vikravandi. ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application is filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 24.02.2022 passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.1931 of 2021.
1/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh 1 & 2 For Respondent 3: Mr.P.Vijaya Devi Government Advocate. Rev.Aplc.No.216 of 2022: Senthil Kumar ...Petitioner Vs
1.Nalina Ammal 2.Kalyan Kumar 3.The Thasildar Vikravandi 4.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application is filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 24.02.2022 passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.1935 of 2021.
2/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh 1 & 2 For Respondents : Mr.P.Vijaya Devi 3 & 4 Government Advocate.
COMMON ORDER
The above review petitions are filed seeking to review the orders
passed in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1931 & 1935 of 2021. The facts in both the petitions overlap and therefore a common order is being pronounced in
the review petitions.
order dated 24.02.2022 in C.R.P.(PD).No.1931 of 2021. This revision is filed by the Judgement debtor challenging the order passed in E.A.No.20 of 2020 in O.S.No.230 of 1991 on the file of the District
3/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi, seeking Police Aid to implement the decree for permanent injunction.
4/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
of the property. However, the suit was dismissed with reference to the
Venkatesan, Annamalai, Lakshmi, Ashok Raj and Sokkalingam.
E.A.No.717 of 2007 in the suit O.S.No.230 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram seeking Police Aid to implement
5/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
the order passed in O.S.No.230 of 1991, confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.1107 of 1995.
any order with reference to the undivided share in the well, motor pump set, switch board etc, till such time the same is declared in
6/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
partition.
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
8/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
E.A.No.20 of 2020, the 3rd defendant had filed C.R.P.(PD).No.1931 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court. Against the said order, the review petitioner have filed Review Application in Rev.Aplc.No. 215 of 2022.
is that it has not been brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents 1 and 2 were only entitled to a 1/4th share in the Item no.2 of the suit properties. Apart from this, no other ground has been raised.
petitioner/first defendant in O.S.No.230 of 1991 is not
9/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
entitled to any land in the plaint schedule properties 1 and 2 to O.S.N0.230 of 1991. She is entitled to 1/4th share
only in the well, motor pump set and switches, in plaint schedule II alone. Excluding the undivided share in the well, motor pump set , switches in plaint Item No.2 schedule property alone, police aid was given.
been taken at any point of time. Be that as it may, a mere perusal of the 2nd Item of the suit schedule property would clearly show that in addition to 5 cents of land in S.No.187 / 4, the plaintiffs have also sought to have their right declared with reference to 1/4th share in the well, pump sets, switch board etc.,
10/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
come across new document, which was not within their knowledge earlier. On the contrary, the petitioners are seeking to develop a new case, not argued at any point of time. Therefore, no ground has been made out to review both the orders.
26.09.2022
kan Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order
11/12
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
kan
Rev.Aplc.Nos.215 & 216 of 2022
26.09.2022
12/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can review the order dismissing the revision petition groundless argument on lower share entitlement.
If the petitioner was entitled to new document or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review.
Which of the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC allows the court to review the impugned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakshmi Ammal
1.Nalina Ammal
2.Kalyan Kumar
3.The Inspector of Police, Vikravandi PS Vikravandi
Senthil Kumar
4.District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
