Nallapitchan v. v.Chinna Manjapoosai
Case brief
What is this about?
Keywords: maintainability of review; Order 47 Rule 1 & 114, Code of Civil Procedure; error apparent on the face of the record; consent order; consent given by party's counsel binds the party; review petitioner as 5th respondent in writ petition; HR & CE Department; Mariyamman Temple, Natham, Dindigul; Inspector of Police, Natham; W.P.(MD)No.18776 of 2024; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench. Relevant for propositions that review does not lie absent an error apparent on the face of the record, and that a party represented by consenting counsel is treated as having consented to the order passed on such consent. No precedent cases were cited or discussed in this short order.
What did the court decide?
The 5th respondent in the writ petition was represented by counsel who had consented to the suggestion, and the order dated 07.08.2024 was made on the basis of the consent of all the parties before the Court including the 5th respondent.