T.Chandran v. S.Vijayan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR Rev.Appl. (Writ) No.230 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.41021 of 2024 T.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.S.Vijayan 2.S.Pachayappan 3.S.Susiyaraj 4.S.Kandan 5.Lakshmi 6.Senjilakshmi 7.S.Ganamoorthy P1 to P7 are represented by their Agent V.Indumathi 8.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
9.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metro Development Authority, Thaimuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Road, 10.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai - 3.
11.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office-3, No.1, Thattankulam Street, Bazar Road, Madhavaram, Chennai - 600 060.
12.The Tahsildar, Madhavaram Taluk Office, Madhavaram, ... Respondents Prayer : Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 02.04.2024 made in W.P.No.14723 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Vijay Anand for Mr.M.Gnanasekar For R1 to R7 :
Mr.S.Elumalai For R8 and R12 :
Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader For R9 :
Mr.R.Sivakumar
Standing Counsel For R10 and R11 :
Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.) This Review Application is directed against the order of this Court dated 02.04.2024 made in W.P.No.14723 of 2023. 2.This Court finds no reason to revisit or review the order dated 02.04.2024 in W.P.No.14723 of 2023. The scope of review has been dealt with in several precedents by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. A Review is not an Appeal in disguise. There is no scope for rehearing or re-arguing the case in a Review Application. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, this Court cannot entertain a Review Application merely because a different order can also be passed. Even an error which can only be deducted by process of reasoning will not fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In such circumstances, we find no merit in this Review Application.
3.Therefore, this Review Application is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court. If he establishes his title before the Civil Court, it follows that he can also apply for patta. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 22.01.2025 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No To 1.The Additional Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metro Development Authority, Thaimuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Road, 3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai - 3.
4.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office-3, No.1, Thattankulam Street, Bazar Road, Madhavaram, Chennai - 600 060.
5.The Tahsildar, Madhavaram Taluk Office, Madhavaram, S.S. SUNDAR , J.
and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
mkn Rev.Appl. (Writ) No.230 of 2024 22.01.2025