Shakeili Dinesh Kumar v. G.Sailaja @ S.Sailaja
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA MAIN CASE No: Civil Revision Petition No.2235 of 2024 PROCEEDING SHEET 01.
10.01.2025 PSK, J Counsel for petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranganathan R. Counsel for respondent(s) : Mr. Thakur Kiran Singh, learned counsel, representing Ms. Thakur Poornima.
Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2024 in Civil Revision Petition No.2235 of 2024 Transferred to IO Folder before corrections.
The instant Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 read with Article 215 and 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to review the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.2235 of 2024.
This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition affirming the order dated 06.06.2024 in I.A.No.1372 of 2023 in G.W.O.P.No.48 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Trial Court has passed the order dated 06.06.2024 without marking any of the relevant documents, which therefore
leads to the said order being per se bad.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order dated 28.07.2021 passed by this High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.1234 of 2020.
Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the instant Review Petition fall under the category of an error apparent on the face of record so as to attract the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of record glaringly visible being pointed out to the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2235 of 2024, the Review Petition is not maintainable.
The petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter again on merits which has already been decided in the Civil Revision Petition which was filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court. The error which the petitioner is trying to point out was in fact said to have been occurred at the Trial Court stage itself and not by this Court in the course of passing of the impugned order.
The Review Petition thus being devoid of merits, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the Trial Court is directed to ensure expeditious conclusion of the trial.
______________ PSK, J GSD