Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2409 (MAD)

Sankarapandian v. K. Muthuraj

2019-09-16

J.NISHA BANU

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission to condone the delay of 1729 days in filing the review application against the Judgment dated 11.06.2014 made in S.A.No.158 of 2001. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on record. 3. Perusal of record shows that the respondents / plaintiffs filed O.S.No.282 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sattur for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Against which, the petitioners / defendants filed A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Against which, the respondents / plaintiffs filed S.A.No.158 of 2001 on the file of this Court and this Court allowed the same and restored the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Seeking to review the said Judgment, the petitioners / defendants have filed this review petition with a delay of 1729 days. 4. On a perusal of records, this Court does not find any valid reason for such an inordinate delay. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it has been stated as follows: “... ... ... 3.I submit that the Second Appeal was argued by the 1st defendant as a party-in-person and he had no legal knowledge and he could not raise the points. I am a street vendor and the background of very poor family. My son name as Ramar who was studied M.Com. Degree and due to the accident he was died during the year 2009. Due to poverty I am not engaging an advocate to conduct the Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. ... ... ...”. In the better affidavit filed on the side of the petitioners, it has been stated as follows: “... ... ... 3.I submit that I received the amount from my wife during the year of April 2019 and immediately I approached the counsel to file a review application. The review application has also filed on 02.02.2019. The review application ought to have filed within the 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. ... ... 3.I submit that I received the amount from my wife during the year of April 2019 and immediately I approached the counsel to file a review application. The review application has also filed on 02.02.2019. The review application ought to have filed within the 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. I received the judgment on 23.02.2017 and the second appeal was disposed on 11.06.2014, the delay in filing a review application is neither willful nor wantonly. I have no legal knowledge. I am Street Vendor and collecting a waste paper. I hardly ever to earn the money for maintaining myself as a human”. 5. The length of delay is not a minimal one. It is 1729 days. It is a settled principle that reason for each and every day delay has to be given. But, for such an inordinate delay, the reasons given by the petitioners / respondents are not satisfactory. Even on merits and the reasons assigned, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. 6. In S.A.(MD) No.158 of 2001, the 1st petitioner / 1st respondent was appeared in person and the respondents / appellants were represented through a counsel. This Court, after hearing both sides, has passed the Judgment, on merits. The power of this Court in matters of review is very limited. Such power can be exercised only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or in the event an order is not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, we may usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Union of India, rep. by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:- "10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320 , [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows" "12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows" "12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......." In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles as under: "19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the principles: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute: 20.1 When the review will be maintainable:- (i). Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii). Mistake or error apparent on the face of record; (iii). Any other sufficient reason. The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. Ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable, unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable, unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 7. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, it may be mentioned that the review is not an appeal in disguise and therefore, this Court cannot consider any of the new materials, which were not placed before the Court, argued and not considered. Applying the said legal principles to the facts of the present case, if the grounds of review are analysed, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the Judgment sought to be reviewed. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, it is always open to them to file an appeal against the Judgment passed in the second appeal, if they so desire. 8. Giving liberty as above, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the review application, which is in SR stage, is rejected.