The Estate Officer Cum Deputy Collector v. Adimoolam(Died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & C.M.P.No. 9589 of 2020 The Estate Officer-cum-Deputy Collector Office of Deputy Collector (Revenue) Revenue Complex, Kamaraj Salai, Saram Post, Pondicherry.

... applicant Vs Adimoolam (Died) 1.Muniammal @ Gavoury 2.Vanaja 3.Varshini @ Vanitha 1/6

4.Latha 5.Sudha 6.Dharanie 7.Sooryakumar ... Respondents Prayer: The petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC against the order dated 22.04.2019 in C.M.P.No.9851 of 2018 in C.R.P.Sr.No.37031 of 2018 filed against the order dated 05.01.2010 in M.A.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

For Applicant :

Mr. R.Sreedhar Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry).

For Respondents :

Mr. D.Senthil Kumar 1, 2, 4 to 6 For Respondents :

No Appearance 3 & 7.

2/6

ORDER

The above review application is filed seeking to review the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.9851 of 2018, which was a petition filed for condoning the delay of 6220 days in filing the Civil Review Petition, challenging the Judgement and Decree in M.A.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. This Court had proceeded to dismiss the petition for condoning the delay both on the grounds of merits and also by relying upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012

(3) SCC 563 - Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another. This order is now sought to be reviewed and the grounds on which the review is sought for is that there has 3/6

been an error in calculating the number of days delay. That apart, the other grounds are on the merits of the case, which has been considered and rejected by this Court. The applicant has not made out any case to show as to how there is an error apparent on the face of the order under review or as to whether that they have come across new facts which despite their due diligence could not be raised during the hearing of the Revision.

3. This Court has taken note of the fact that the applicant has not been able to establish or prove their contention that the respondent herein was an encroacher and that he had come into possession of the property subsequent to the handing over of possession on 28.05.1990. This Court has also discussed the reasons as to why it has come to the said conclusion. The applicant if aggrieved by the order ought to have taken out an appeal and not come up with this review. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for reviewing the order. 4/6

4. In the result, the review application is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

04.08.2023 kan Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order To The II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

5/6

P.T.ASHA, J., kan 04.08.2023 6/6