Pitchi v. Parameswaran Pillai (Died), Thankaraj

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN REV.APL(MD)No.70 of 2024 in S.A(MD)No.1134 of 1996 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.9153, 9156, 15684, 15685, 15478 to 15480 & 11291 of 2024 1.Pitchi 2.Ponnappan 3.Rosammal 4.Subramoniam 5.Chandran 6.Packiananthan 7.Padmanabhan ... Review Petitioners / Appellants v.

1.Parameswaran Pillai (Died) 2.Thankaraj 3.Thankappan 1/14

4.Selvan 5.Kamalan 6.Narayanan (Died) 7.Palayyan 8.Palammal (Died) 9.Valsalam 10.Rajamony 11.Anthony 12.Kochappi 13.Raman Pillai 14.Kunchan 15.Yothel Ravi 16.Omana 17.Mathevan (Died) 18.Lohithan 19.Selvamony 20.Kuzhanthavel (Died) 21.Sathian 22.Ponnumuthu 23.Samuel 2/14

24.Maria Soosai 25.Nesamony (Died) 26.Sathianesan (Died) 27.Ponnayyan (Died) 28.Rengaswamy (Died) 29.Muthunayagam (Died) 30.Mahendran 31.Dasan 32.Bhaskaran 33.Selvanathan (Died) 34.Selvadas (Died) 35.Matchim (Died) 36.Navatheepam 37.Thapasimuthu 38.Kamaraj 39.Retnam 40.Albert 41.Bennet 42.Lalitha 43.Vimala 3/14

44.Elsi 45.Stanley 46.Thankamony Nadar 47.Thankayyan 48.Palayyan 49.Mony 50.Sadasivam 51.Baburaj 52.Mariathankam 53.Rajam 54.Santham 55.Isravel 56.Swarnabai 57.Thomas 58.Kamalabai 59.Thankaraj 60.Singh 61.Theresammal 62.Vijayan 63.Hannabel George 4/14

64.Devakumar Samuel 65.Chelladurai Samuel 66.Vijayakumari Samuel 67.Sujeenkumar Samuel 68.Thankammal 69.Velayuthan (Died) 70.Sadasivan 71.Jagathi 72.Pushpakaran 73.Ravi 74.Chandran 75.Jayachandran 76.Sarojini 77.Thanka Bai 78.Ananda Bai 79.Rayappan 80.Yesudas 81.Bai 82.Naggomi 83.Joice 5/14

84.Thayee 85.Amos 86.Ponna 87.Suseela 88.Chellamma 89.Thankaraj 90.Thankabai 91.Charles 92.Kamalabai 93.Palase 94.Jepamony 95.Lakshmi 96.Thankaswamy 97.Moni 98.Sundararaj 99.Thomas 100.Vijayakumar 101.Rangabai 102.Chellammal 103.Sarasammal 6/14

104.Thasammal 105.Sathiaseelan 106.Bhaskaran 107.Kamalam 108.Moni 109.Wilson 110.Pushpakumari 111.Prema Grand 112.Vijayan 113.Kamalammal 114.Rajammal 115.Saradha 116.Selvaraj 117.Thankalakshmi 118.Kanakaraj 119.Santham 120.Chandrika 121.Jeyaraj @ Jayakumar 122.Lakshmi 123.Kanakam 7/14

124.Bhargavi 125.Pankajalakshmi 126.Chellabai 127.Natarajan 128.Vasantha 129.Saroja 130.Annamma 131.Shyleswari 132.Vijayakumar 133.Lalitha 134.Shani (minor) Represented by her mother 130th respondent 135.Yeshuva 136.Irakkam 137.Yoseph 138.Theiva Pillai 139.Thanka Bai 140.Rosely 141.Harichandra 142.Lilly 8/14

143.Antleses 144.Lakshmi 145.Jalaja 146.Vanaja 147.Baby 148.Lysammal 149.Shobanakumar 150.Jebakumar 151.Nalini 152.Mohan Raj 153.Soman Raj 154.Leela @ Vanaja Kumari 155.Mohandass 156.Sivadoss 157.Rajadoss 158.Sathiyasivam 159.Thangabai 160.Indira 161.Natchathiram (Died) 162.Gokiladoss 9/14

163.Sasi Kumar 164.Valsala 165.Padmini 166.Chellatchi 167.Chelladurai 168.Thangadurai 169.Sri.Krishnavaruran 170.Minnaldurai 171.Gopalakrishnan 172.Vanajakumari 173.Sathyabama 174.Mani 175.S.Babu Inbam 176.S.Martin 177.Sugirtha Leela 178.Minor Sena 179.Minor Mashi (Minors R.178 and R.179 represented by R.177 Sugirtha Leela) 180.Ranjalin 181.Rajan 10/14

182.Minor.Suji 183.Minor Sujina (Minors R.182 and R.183 represented by their mother & Guardian R.180) 184.Annamma 185.Chandrasekaran 186.Kamalavathy 187.Nagendran 188.Mezhehi 189.Gomathy 190.Sanil G Das 191.Sajith G Dass 192.Sajish G Dass 193.Devaki 194.Sathiya Bama 195.Vijaya 196.Ponnappan 197.Raajini 198.Premalatha 199.Arul D.Abiyaa 11/14

200.Arul D.Amariya (R.198 to R.200 are suo motu brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased R.6 vide) ... Respondents 1 to 200/ Respondents 1 to 200/ Respondents 1 to 200 PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to review the decree and judgment passed in S.A(MD)No.1134 of 1996 dated 28.04.2022 by allowing the Second Appeal. For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Laxman

ORDER

Heard the review applicants.

2.S.A(MD)No.1134 of 1996 was dismissed by me on 28.04.2022. The review applicants have not satisfied that the judgment pronounced by me suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. It appears that the review applicants want to adduce some more evidentiary material. If the review applicants want to canvas the case on merits, they have to necessarily move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I am not inclined to entertain this review application.

12/14

3.This Review Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. 07.11.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC :Yes/No MGA 13/14

G.R.SWAMINATHAN , J.

MGA REV.APL(MD)No.70 of 2024 in S.A(MD)No.1134 of 1996 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.9153, 9156, 15684, 15685, 15478 to 15480 & 11291 of 2024 07.11.2024 14/14