Single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 CPC. The Court held that the scope of review cannot be for re-adjudication of merits and since grounds were already considered, no error apparent warranted review.
Review Petition stands 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.
Review Application No.48 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Review Application No.48 of 2024 in
W.P.No.16776 of 2018
K.Srinivasa Reddy
… Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114
of the Civil Procedure Code to review the order dated 11.12.2023 in
W.P.No.16776 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subba Reddy
Page 1 of 4
Review Application No.48 of 2024
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The review petition is filed to review the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.16776 of 2018.
merits involved in a case. Error apparent, if any noticed alone is to be entertained for reviewing the order.
3. In the present case, the grounds raised by the review petitioner
had already been considered by this Court in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the judgment dated 11.12.2023, which is sought to be reviewed in the present Review Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
review petitioner may be permitted to approach the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the purpose of exchange of land. All these aspects were
Page 2 of 4
Review Application No.48 of 2024
considered by this Court. There is a specific finding in Paragraph No.9 that
the question of permitting the petitioner to buy the portion, which is marked
as “road” is not acceptable, as it would embolden people to buy public
properties like OSR, Parks etc.,
5. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider any such request made
by the petitioner. More so, we do not find any error apparent, warranting review of the order passed in W.P.No.16776 of 2018 dated 11.12.2023. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 14.03.2024
skr
Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes
To
Page 3 of 4
Review Application No.48 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.
skr
Review Application No.48 of 2024
14.03.2024
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether error apparent is present in the order dated 11.12.2023 in W.P.No.16776 of 2018 warranting review.
Whether the grounds raised by the petitioner had already been considered by the Court in the impugned judgment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Srinivasa Reddy
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Hosur – 635 109.
The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur – 635 109.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
