Court dismissed review application filed by petitioner challenging judgment cancelling flat allotment due to non-payment. Granted liberty to participate in future auctions considering litigation delay.
Petitioner granted liberty to participate in any auction if conducted by respondents in future.
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.Aplw.No.34/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
K.Selvaraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Arbitrator/Sub Registrar of Cooperative [Housing Development], Sankari Salem District.
2.The Special Officer [Cooperatives] S 1565, Palace Nagar Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Palace Towers Cherry Road, Salem 1. ... Respondents
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 114 of CPC challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2022 made in WA.No.2565/2021.
1
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R1 : Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan,SGP For R2 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Standing Counsel
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
2
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
3
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
4
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
terms and conditions of the allotment Therefore, the allotment was cancelled after due process. The petitioner challenged the order cancelling allotment by raising a dispute and his claim was turned down. When the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the order of Arbitrator, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition in WP.No.15101/2020 challenging the order of Principal District Judge in CMA.CS.No.20/2021. This was dismissed holding that the petitioner has not established any ground to set aside the Award under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Thereafter, the writ appeal in WA.No.2565/2021 is also dismissed. Now review application is filed to review the order. This Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again has ruled that unless there is error apparent on record, there is no scope for entertaining a review. The review is on the same grounds on which the writ petition was filed. The review application is not rehearing the appeal. No ground is made to review the order.
(9)In the result, the review application is dismissed. However, considering
the fact that the petitioner has also paid the sum of Rs.2 lakhs and this litigation is pending for a long period of time, this Court only directs the
5
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
respondents to permit the petitioner also to participate in any auction if any, conducted by the respondents in future. No costs.
[SSSRJ] [SSKJ] 02.09.2024
AP Internet : Yes
To
1.The Arbitrator/Sub Registrar of Cooperative [Housing Development], Sankari Salem District.
6
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
S.S. SUNDAR, J., and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
AP
Rev.Aplw.No.34/2022
02.09.2024
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC against the judgment dismissing the writ appeal allowing for future participation in auction admits to being
Whether the Court can grant coercive relief in a Review Application requiring respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in future auctions.
Whether the review application raised any grounds showing error apparent on record warranting interference with the impugned judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Selvaraj
The Arbitrator/Sub Registrar of Cooperative [Housing Development], Sankari Salem District.
The Special Officer [Cooperatives] S 1565, Palace Nagar Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd.
S.S. SUNDAR
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
