Laurence Kashmir v. Tidier Delphin
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.12.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN in C.R.P.No.1056 of 2020 1.Laurence Kashmir 2.Angeline Kashmir 3.Francisca Kashmir (The petitioners 2 & 3 are represented by their power agent Mr.Laurence Kashmir) ... Review Applicant/ Respondents Vs.
1.Tidier Delphin
...Respondent/petitioner
2.Leonie Delphin 3.Josephine Turgot 4.Rene Delphin 5.Fernand Delphin 6.Theodore Delphin 7.Emmanuel Delphin 8.Malarvidjy Delphin 9.Edvige Delphin 10.Virginia Delphin 11.Jean Marie Delphin 12.George Delphin 13.Chila Delphin 14.Thony Babu Delphin
15.Anitha Delphin 16.Gregorie Delphin 17.Marie Delphin 18.Simon Delphin German Delphin (died) 19.Christain Kashmir Turgot Sinnaya (Died) 20.Sambasivam 21.Gowtham 22.Dessindra Turgot 23.Joselina Turgot 24.Radja Turgot 25.Bernard Turgot 26.Nalina Turgot 27.Gracia Turgot 28.Bernadette Mala 29.Vennial Turgot 30.AroumayaTousseau Turgot 31.Senthia Turgot 32.Pradip Vidjay Turgot (Respondents 2 to 32 are given up in this Review Petition since they are not contested in CRP)
...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Review application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 06.07.2020, passed in C.R.P.No.1056 of 2020, by setting aside the same and dismiss Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedhar
For R1 : Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma For Mr.L.Chandrakumar
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2.It is the contention of Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the Review petitioner that when the Revision petition came up for hearing, even though he was present, several orders had not been disclosed to this Court and as a matter of fact, decisions had also been rendered on various issues. The learned Counsel stated that only thereafter, did the learned Counsel in the Trial Court appraise him of certain further facts which had already taken place namely, that the Revision petitioner had filed applications and orders had also been passed in those applications. 3.Now, pursuant to the order in the review petition remanding the matter back to the learned Sub Judge for consideration. I am informed by both the learned Counsels and more particularly, by the learned Counsel, who appears for the respondents herein/Revision petitioner that
arguments had already been advanced before the Sub-Court and matter is reserved for orders.
4.Let me therefore restrict with an observation that while examining the records of the case, the learned Principal Sub Judge of Puducherry may examine whether, on any issue, a finding had already been given. Then, it may not be prudent on his/her part to revisit those findings except in manner known to law. Let him/her pass orders on the basis of the arguments advanced on the issues on which orders will necessarily have to be passed, but let him/her not revisit orders already passed except in manner directed or if those orders have been interfered with or set aside by an appellate forum or a revisional forum. 5.No further observations are required. This Review Application is disposed of. No costs.
09.12.2021 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No lr
Note:Issue order copy on 10.12.2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.
lr In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
in C.R.P.No.1056 of 2020 09.12.2021