Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 3404
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Mohanan
Versus
Mohammed Idris & Others
Review Application No.84 of 2006 in C.R.P.PD.No.54 of 2006
Decided On :Decided on : 12-12-2006
For the Petitioner:T.R. Mani, Senior Counsel for M. Balasubramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, M/s. Lakshmi Priya Associates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review of an order is only possible under specific circumstances outlined in the CPC, and the correct remedy for a party aggrieved by an order is to file an appeal on merits.
Headnote:
Review Application - Valuation of Suit Property - Sec.114 of CPC, Order 47 Rule 1(1), 1980 S.C. 691, AIR 1987 S.C. 2085, 2002(2) CTC 513 - The court discussed the application for review under Sec.114 of CPC, the circumstances under which a review of an order is possible, and the relevant legal provisions. The court also referenced and discussed key legal principles established in previous decisions, including the correct valuation of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner challenged the trial court's order directing the valuation of the suit property and payment of deficit court fee. The court dismissed the review application, stating that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merits in the review application and dismissed it, emphasizing that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal on merits.
Issues: Valuation of suit property, application for review under Sec.114 of CPC, scope of review petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a review of an order is only possible under specific circumstances outlined in Order 47 Rule 1(1) of the CPC, and that the correct remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal on merits.
Final Decision: The Review Application was dismissed with no costs.
This Review Application has been filed against the order dated 12.4.2006 passed by this court in C.R.P.PD.No.54/2005.
2. The facts are as under:
The review petitioner is the 6th respondent who had filed the CRP PD No.54/2005 challenging the order of the trial court dated 13.12.2004 directing the 1st respondent herein to value the suit at Rs.2 lakhs and to pay a deficit court fee of Rs.9375/-.
3. O.S.No.9869/1990 was instituted by the plaintiff after filing O.P.No.324/1986 permitting her to institute the suit as an indigent person. The suit is for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 7.1.1985 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st respondent is null and void and illegal. Pending suit, I.A.o.2173/1997 was filed by the review petitioner to implead himself as a party as he purchased the suit schedule property on 10.6.1988 for a sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. I.A.No.2173/1997 was allowed on 1.9.1997 and the review petitioner was impleaded as 6th defendant in the suit. The review petitioner/6th defendant filed additional written statement contending that the market value of the property is at Rs.47 lakhs and the plaintiff has undervalued the relief of recovery of possession at Rs.75,000/-. This objection was taken as the plaintiff amended the plaint seeking additional relief of recovery of possession after her amendment petition was allowed on 6.12.1997. Based on the additional written statement, an additional issue as to the value of the prayer for declaration and recovery of possession was framed and the same was tried as a preliminary issue. The trial court by order dated 13.12.2004 held that the prayer for declaration in the suit has been correctly valued and the prayer for recovery of possession is not correctly valued. Therefore the trial court directed the 2nd plaintiff to value the prayer for recovery of possession at Rs.2 lakhs and to pay the deficit court fee. Challenging the order dated 13.12.2004 deciding the preliminary issue of court fee, the above review petitioner filed C.R.P.PD.No.54/2005 and the learned Judge of this court by order dated 12.4.2006 dismissed the C.R.P., with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/-. Against this order dated 12.4.2006, the above review application has been filed. As the learned Judge who passed the order has retired subsequently, the Review Application has been posted before me on the orders of the Honble Chief Justice.
4. Heard Mr. T.R. Mani learned Senior counsel for the Review Petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the amendment petition to include prayer for recovery of possession from the Review Petitioners was allowed on 6.12.1997, the prayer should have been valued at the market value of the property as on 6.12.1997 or at least at Rs.20 lakhs being the market value as decided by the senior bailiff of City Civil Court, Chennai on 1.9.2004.
6. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the reason that the above petition has been filed under Sec.114 of CPC by way of review to review the order dated 12.4.2006.
7. Order 47 CPC deals with application for review for judgment and as per order 47 Rule 1(1) an application may be filed by any person under Sec.114 CPC, if he or she discovered new and important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge, there was a mistake or error in the order under review and on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior court in any other case shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
8. Therefore excepting under the circumstances enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1(1), a review of an order is not possible.
9. By the order dated 12.4.2006 the
