K.Raghul Vs M.S.Keerthana

This review petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, to review the order passed in Wp No. 28830 of 2024 dated 18.10.2024 by this Honourable Court in the above writ Petition and dismiss the same and pass.

¶25

For Appellant(s): D.S.RAMESH

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The power of review is very limited and the matter cannot be allowed to be

¶28

reheard. The Court may allow review on three specified grounds viz.,

¶29

"(i) discovery of new and important matter or

¶30

evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made;

¶31

(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

¶32

(iii)for any other sufficient reason".

¶33

Keeping this in view, it is to be considered whether the order dated

¶34

18.10.2024 is to be reviewed.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

REV.APLW No. 114 of 2025

¶37

The reveiw petitioners were arrayed as respondents 4 & 5 in their writ petitioner filed by the first respondent herein. The writ petition in W.P.No.28830/2024 was filed by the first respondent herein for a simple direction to the electricity board authorities to restore the electricity service connection to her house.

¶38

The first petitioner and the first respondent herein are spouse. Both are fighting for divorce. The couple have a child. The first respondent herein is residing at a shared house of the petitioners herein. It is the case of the first respondent wife that the petitioners herein have disconnected electricity service connection to her portion of the property. Seeking restoration of the electricity connection, the said writ petition was filed.

¶39

Considering the nature of the prayer sought for, this Court directed the officials to restore the electricity connection on the same day. Accordingly, electricity was restored.

¶40

At para No.5 of the order, this Court has recorded a statement made by the second petitioner herein viz., father of the first petitioner that liberty may be granted to him to workout his remedy before the competent civil Court. Recording the fact that, electricity connection was restored and the writ petition was disposed of.

¶41

Now, the respondents 4 & 5 in the writ petition have filed this review application on the ground that certain facts were not brought out by the writ petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support, the petitioners have only narrated the matrimonial

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

REV.APLW No. 114 of 2025

¶44

dispute with the first respondent and the first petitioner herein. At para No.18, the second petitioner viz., father of the first petitioner had sought for a direction to direct the first respondent wife to accept alternative accommodation. This is nothing but abuse of process of review.

¶45

Having sought leave from this Court, to move the competent civil Court for necessary leave, it is highly irresonsible part of the petitioners to have filed this review petition. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, no ground made out to review the order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶46

07-04-2025

¶47

rli

¶48

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

REV.APLW No. 114 of 2025

¶51

To