A review application sought recall of an earlier Civil Revision Petition order permitting the first defendant, whose ex parte order had been set aside, to participate in trial proceedings. The court found no error apparent on the record and dismissed the review application.
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(MD)No.146 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
S.Mathiyalagan ... Applicant / Petitioner
Vs
1.R.Karuppiah
2.Ramasubramanian
3.Marudhupandian
4.Thamaraiselvi
5.Kalidasan ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review and recall the order 07.03.2024 passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2538 of 2023 on the file of this Court and allow the review application.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For R1 : Mr.D.Senthil For R2 to R5 : Mr.S.Vellaichamy
1/6
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
ORDER
This Review application is filed to review and recall the order 07.03.2024 passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2538 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
P.W.1. This is according to the review petitioner will show the collusive nature between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Since the first defendant is colluding with the plaintiffs, as per settled procedure he must lead evidence first. After the evidence let in by the revision petitioner, if permission is granted to the first defendant to lead evidence then it will lead to miscarriage of justice.
absolutely there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
draw the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by them before the trial Court. No doubt that as per the written statement filed by them, in the last portion, they have stated that they sought the decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for by them. But he is referring to the earlier paragraph which would show that he must also be given opportunity to lead evidence on his part. He would further submit that under the guise of review application the petitioner wants to rehear the matter and recall the order, which, is not permissible under law.
3/6
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
4/6
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
right may be affected, this review application is filed which may not lie. Absolutely, there is no error apparent on the face of record. Under the guise of review, the matter cannot be ordered to be reopened for rehearing. So the grievance expressed by the revision petitioner is only illusory in nature and not real as on date. No prejudice will cause to the review petitioner in letting the first defendant in participating the proceedings. In fact, as mentioned in the Civil Revision Petition order, the review petitioner cannot be denied the opportunity. I find absolutely no reason to entertain this Review Application.
02.12.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn
5/6
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER IN Rev.Aplc(MD)No.146 of 2024
02.12.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of 07.03.2024 in C.R.P(MD)No.2538 of 2023 contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Whether a defendant who filed a written statement accepting the plaintiff's contention indicates a collusive suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Mathiyalagan
R.Karuppiah
Ramasubramanian
Marudhupandian
Thamaraiselvi
Kalidasan
G.Ilangovan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
