M.Sujithra v. Sivaramakrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09-09-2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Review Application No.36 of 2021 in A.S.174/2017 K.Chellappan ...Appellant/Review Petitioner vs.

1.Smt.M.Pancharani 2.M.Kasthuri 3.S.Lakshmi 4.S.Selvi 5.S.Sulochana ..Respondents/Respondents Prayer: This Review Application is preferred under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in A.S.No.174 of 2017.

Prayer in A.S.No.174 of 2017: Appeal Suit is preferred under section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure against the order Decree dt.07.11.2016 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Judge, District Court No.II Kancheepuram. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Chellappan (Party-in-Person) For Respondents: Mr.R.Sreedhar

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the party-in-person, argued the Review Application at length by taking considerable length of time.

2. The petitioner-in-person read over the grounds raised in the Review Application in entirety.

3. Perusal of the grounds raised in the Review Application would reveal that the petitioner could not able to establish any error apparent on the record, enabling this Court to consider the Review Application.

4. The scope of the review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be expanded, so as to readjudicate the merits put forth by the petitioner in the Review Application.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. This Court considered the merits and delivered the judgment and the grounds raised in the writ petition may be the grounds for an appeal and not to review the judgment already delivered.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the Review Application by stating that the petitioner has raised the grounds on merits and thus, the Review Application is not entertained.

7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not established any error apparent on record for the purpose of considering the Review Application, this Court do not find any other reason for the purpose of reviewing the judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in A.S.No.174 of 2017.

8. Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar svn To:

The District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.

+2cc to Mr.K.Chellappan Party in person,S.R.No.46038 Review Application No.36 of 2021 in A.S.174/2017 BS(CO) B.Vc(21/09/2021)(28/09/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/