Dismissed¶27

.R. Manickam v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Jul 2025REV.APLW(MD)/26/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed; Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 C.P.C.; error apparent on record; scope of review cannot be expanded; grounds on merits not adjudicable in review proceedings; review of order dated 01.10.2005 in W.P.(MD)No.7835 of 2005; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; REV.APLW.(MD)No.26 of 2005; petitioner R.Manickam; respondents include District Collector Dindigul, Revenue Divisional Officer Palani, Commissioner Palani Municipality, Executive Officer Arulmigu Dhandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani Taluk Kurumbar Madam; decided 17.07.2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Grounds on merits raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in a review proceeding, and the scope of review cannot be expanded. ¶23

.R. Manickam Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

REV.APLW.(MD)No.26 of 2005

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

REV.APLW.(MD)No.26 of 2005

¶8

R.Manickam ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.The Commissioner, Palani Municipality, Palani.

¶13

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dhandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani.

¶14

5.Palani Taluk Kurumbar Madam, Rep., by its Secretary, M.Subramaniam ...Respondents

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

REV.APLW.(MD)No.26 of 2005

¶18

PRAYER: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 01.10.2005 passed in W.P.(MD)No.7835 of 2005 by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram, for Mr.G.Ethirajulu For R1 & R2 : Not ready in notice For R3 : Mr.P.Srinivas For R4 : Mr.R.Murali, for Mr.R.Devaraj For R5 : Mr.S.Kadarkarai

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶22

The order sought to be reviewed was passed on 01.10.2005 made in W.P.(MD)No.7835 of 2005.

¶23

2.The petitioner has raised grounds on merits, which cannot be adjudicated in a review proceedings. The scope of review cannot be expanded. Only in the event of establishing an error apparent on record, the Review Petition may be entertained, but not otherwise. This Court do not find any reasons to

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

REV.APLW.(MD)No.26 of 2005

¶27

exercise the power of review and therefore, this Review Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

(S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.) 17.07.2025

¶29

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No