Thangavel, v. The General Manager,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Review Application Nos.177 & 178 of 2011 in C.R.P. Nos.

291 & 331 of 2011 Thangavel ..Petitioner in Rev.Appl.No.177/2011 Rajadurai ..Petitioner in Rev.Appl.No.178/2011 Vs.

1. The General Manager, Bombay Burma Trading Corporation By its power of Attorney Divakaran, Mudis Bazaar Post, Valparai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

..1st Respondent in both the Review Applications 2.Pavitharan ..2nd Respondent in Rev.Appl.No.177/2011 2.G.N.Rich ..2nd Respondent in Rev.Appl.No.178/2011 COMMON PRAYER: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C, to review the orders dated 18.07.2011 made in C.R.P.Nos.291 and 331 of 2011on the file of this Court. (in both the Review Applications) For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For R1 : Mr.V.Achuthan For R2 : Not ready in notice

ORDER

The petitioner in both the Review Applications have come out with the present Review Applications to review the orders dated 18.07.2011 made in C.R.P.Nos.291 and 331 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

2. The review petitioners are the petitioners in the C.R.P.Nos.291 and 331 of 2011. They filed the above said Civil Revision Petitions, challenging the orders dated 08.11.2010, made in I.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.27 and 28 of 2009, on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The I.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2010 challenged in the Civil Revision Petitions were filed to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the A.S.Nos.27 and 28 of 2009, which were dismissed for default on 13.07.2009. This Court, considering the reasons given by the petitioner to condone the delay, dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions, holding that the review applicants have not given sufficient reason for condoning the delay and petitioners have not filed any application to set aside the exparte decree passed in the First Appeals filed by the respondents for enhancement of damages.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants has argued the matter on merits and could not point out any error in the

order. It is well settled that the Review Application can be allowed only to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, there is no error warranting interference to reconsider the said orders.

4. In the result, both the Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.

19.09.2017 Index : Yes/No gsa

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

gsa Review Application Nos.177 & 178 of 2011 in C.R.P. Nos.291 & 331 of 2011 19.09.2017