Dismissed¶59

P.G.S.Kannan v. G.Adhiyaman

Madras HC16 Apr 2025REV.APPL/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court review application dismissed; scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be expanded for re-adjudication on merits or re-appreciation of documents already considered; review limited to correction of error apparent; grounds of appeal are not grounds of review; documents not produced at final hearing of writ appeal cannot be filed in review; W.A.No.856 of 2024 / WP.No.27462 of 2009; Vallalar Illam society, Dharmapuri; P.G.S.Kannan v. G.Adhiyaman; S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar JJ.; 16-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Producing documents after the final hearing of the writ appeal and re-arguing the matter is impermissible in review proceedings; the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be expanded for re-adjudication on merits or re-appreciation of documents already considered by the Court. ¶49

P.G.S.Kannan Vs G.Adhiyaman — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025 and WA No.856 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.9410 of 2025

¶8

P.G.S.Kannan

¶9

S/o. M.G.Swamy, Secretary, Vallalar Illam, Registration No.5/1967, Kurinji Nagar, Dokkubhodhanahalli Post, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District-636 807

¶10

Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

G.Adhiyaman Secretary,S/o.M.G.Swamy, Vallalar Illam, No.5/1967, At 36/835, Nattanmaipuram, Dharmapuri-636 701

¶13

2.The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶14

Rep by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment, Chennai-600 009

¶15

3.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai.

¶16

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

¶17

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶18

4.The District Registrar Societies Registration, Dharmapuri

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

WA No. 856 of 2024

¶21

G. Adhiyaman, Secretary Secretary of Vallalar Illam, Reg No.5/167, at 36/83-E, Nattanmaipuram, Dharmapuri.

¶22

Appellant(s)

¶23

¶24

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment, Chennai.

¶25

2.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai.

¶26

3.The District Registrar-cum-Societies Registration, Dharmapuri.

¶27

4.P.G.S.Kannan BT Assistant (Maths), Government Higher Secondary School, Adhiyamankottai, Nallampalli Via, Dharmapuri Tk and Dist.

¶28

Respondent(s)

¶29

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶30

PRAYER

¶31

To set aside the order dated 03-03-2025 made in WA No.856/2024 in WP.No.27462/2009 and pass such further or other order as this Honourable Court.

¶32

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

¶33

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶34

WA No. 856 of 2024

¶35

PRAYER

¶36

To set aside order passed by the Hon'ble Court in WP No.27462/2009, dt. 01.08.2022.

¶37

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶38

For Appellant(s): Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, Senior Counsel For Mr.M.Jothi Kumar

¶39

ORDER

¶40

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

¶41

The Review Application has been instituted to review the order dated

¶42

03.03.2025 passed in W.A.No.856 of 2024.

¶43

Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

¶44

of the review petitioner would mainly contend that the review petitioner could

¶45

not able to produce all the documents at the time of final hearing of the writ

¶46

appeal before this Court. Therefore, they want to file all those documents and

¶47

re-argue the matter.

¶48

Such a course is impermissible in review proceedings. Scope of Order

¶49

47 Rule 1 of CPC cannot be expanded for the purpose of re-adjudication on

¶50

merits or re-appreciation of documents already considered by this Court while

¶51

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

¶52

REV.APPL No. 86 of 2025

¶53

passing the final orders in the writ appeal proceedings. Scope of Review is to be

¶54

limited only to the extent of correction of error apparent, if any brought to the

¶55

notice of this Court. That being the scope of the review power conferred, the

¶56

grounds raised in the review petition on merits deserves no further consideration.

¶57

The grounds for appeal cannot be considered as grounds for review.

¶58

That being the principles settled, this Court do not find any reason to entertain the present review petition and consequently, the review petition stands

¶59

dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.

¶60

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (K.RAJASEKAR J.) 16-04-2025

¶61

ssi

¶62

Index:Yes/No

¶63

Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶64

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No