Madras High Court
Saravana Pillai vs A.S.Mariappan on 21 February, 2003
Author: M. Chockalingam
Bench: M. Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/02/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2002
AND REVIEW APPLICATION NOS. 149 AND 150 OF 2002
in
S.A.NOS.978, 1195 AND 1236 OF 1990
AND
C.M.P.NOS.18968 AND 17963 OF 2002
Saravana Pillai .. Applicant in
all the applications
-Vs-
1. A.S.Mariappan
2. Kothandam Chettiar
3. Settiappan
4. Kaliammal
5. Shenbagavalli .. Respondents in
Rev.Appln.No.148/2002
1. Kaliammal
2. A.S.Mariappan
3. Perumal Chettiar .. Respondents in
Rev.Appln.No.149/2002
1. Shenbagavalli
Rangasami Naidu (died)
2. Dr.Balasubramaniam
3. Velusamy
4. Manapparai Municipality
5. R.Senthilvel
6. Shyamala
7. Chandra .. Respondents in
Rev.Appln.No.150/2002
These review applications are preferred under Section 114 r/w Order 47
Rule 1 C.P.C. against the judgment of this Court in S.A.Nos.978, 1195 and
1236 of 1990 dated 26.11.2001 respectively.
!For Applicant : Mr.J.Srinivasamohan
^For Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
for R1 in Rev.A.148/2002
for R2 in Rev.A.149/2002
for RR2,3 and 5 in Rev.A.150/2002
No appearance for RR2,3 and 5
in Rev.A.148/2002
No appearance for RR1 and 3
in Rev.A.149/2002
No appearance for R1 in
Rev.A.150/2002
:COMMON ORDER
These three review applications are filed by the appellants in S.A.Nos.978, 1195 and 1236 of 1990.
2. The applicant/appellant was the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.652/82, wherein he sought for a declaration of his title to the property, while the respondents 1 and 4 in Review Application No.148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S.No.665/82 for mandator junction, and the fifth respondent in Review Application No.148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S.No.714/82 for declaration of her title. It is admitted by both sides that the subject matter in all the three suits were the two portions of the same propert y. This Court heard both sides at the time of the second appeals elaborately and after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence, has delivered a judgment with the reasonings in full. Now, the applicant/appellant has come forward with these review a pplications seeking for the review of the judgment of this Court in the three second appeals. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of these review applications would make it abundantly clear that the appellant seeks for re-appreciation of eviden ce by making submissions once again. Apart from that, the appellant wants to put forth certain additional documents which he could not produce earlier.
3. Needless to say that the power of review could be exercised only on the discovery of new and important evidence, which even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review and could not be brough rth at the time when the judgment was made. A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, if found, may also lead to the exercise of power of review. It is also well settled that the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the d ecision was erroneous on merits, since this would be within the province of court of appeal. It has to be borne in mind that review is not an appeal in disguise. All the grounds in the review applications and also the submissions made by the learned Co unsel for the applicant/appellant would clearly indicate that the applicant seeks for reversal of the judgment rendered by this court in the three second appeals by way of reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence, already relied on by the p arties. The court is of the view that in exercise of the powers of review, it cannot be done, and if done so, it would be nothing but exceeding its jurisdiction.
4. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it has to be necessarily held that these review applications are devoid of merits, and the earlier judgment of this court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, so as to make a rev The review applications are liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, these review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Consequently, connected CMPs are also dismissed.
Index: yes Internet: yes nsv/