Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/233/2017granted

Arul @ Arulnidhi, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-01-09Honourable Mr Justice A.M. Basheer Ahamed2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.233 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10704 of 2017 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in S.A.(MD)No.SR51558 of 2014 The State represented by its The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

.. Review Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant vs.

Veeranathevar (died) 1.Mookammal 2.Chellammal 3.Chellapandian 4.Rajendran 5.Marimuthu 6.Sivakumar .. Respondents/ Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 114 C.P.C. against the order dated 17.02.2016 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in S.A.(MD)No.SR51558 of 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Mari Chellaiah Prabhu Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai for R4 and R5

O R D E R

This Review Application is filed against the order dated 17.02.2016 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in S.A.(MD)No.(SR)51558 of 2014.

2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is to be borne in mind that the scope under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited under the guise of Review Application. The Review Applicant cannot be allowed to reargue the matter, which was decided on merits. The Review Application can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. In the case on hand, there is no ground to re-agitate the matter for reviewing the order passed by this Court, which considered each and every aspects and also following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court.

5. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the Review Application. Hence, the Review Application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) +1cc to Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai ,Advocate, SR.No.51266 Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.233 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10704 of 2017 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 in S.A.(MD)No.SR51558 of 2014 27.03.2019 SP/02.05.2019/ 2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/