Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 644
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Peyathevar (died) & others
Versus
Ranganathan
Review Application (MD) No. 3 of 2012 in C.R.P.(MD) No. 1185 of 2003 & M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On: 30-01-2013
For the Petitioners: No appearance.
For the Respondent:M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
Review proceedings are limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Civil Procedure - I.A.No.99 of 2002, O.S.No.121 of 1996 - The court discussed the incorrect averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant, the principle of ensuring substantial justice, and the limitations of review proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners filed a Review Petition against the dismissal of their Civil Revision Petition. They argued that the earlier order was a matter of record and should not have been dismissed on technical grounds. They also contended that the subject land was their only source of livelihood.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to enable interference with the earlier orders. It emphasized that review proceedings are limited to the scope and ambit of law and cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.
Issues: The issues involved inconsistency in evidence, the plea for contesting the suit, and the source of livelihood for the Petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that review proceedings are limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. It emphasized the importance of ensuring substantial justice and the limitations of review jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Review Petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
1. The Petitioners have preferred the present Review Petition as against the Order dated 5/1/2011 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 passed by this Court.
2. It is to be borne in mind that this Court while passing the order on 5/1/2011 in C.R.P. (MD) No.1185 of 2003 has inter alia observed in paragraph Nos.17 to 20 as follows:-
“17. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to make a significant mention to the averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in the sworn statement in the chief examination, in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3, wherein he has mentioned that during 02.11.2000, he has been working as a Teacher in Surlipatti and he used to go to his native place Madurai once in three or four months and when the suit has come up for final hearing on 02.11.2000, his counsel has informed him to his residential address, but he has not received the same and hence, he has not appeared for the hearing on 02.11.2000. The averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in his own affidavit in the Chief examination in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3 to the effect that during 02.11.2000, he has served in Surlipatti and he used to come to Madurai once in three or four months, etc, is quite contrary to the admissions made by him as P.W.1 (in cross-examination on 24.3.2003) to the effect that he does not remember as to whether he has mentioned in the affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 that he has been serving at Surlipatti and before that, he has served at Thumbakundu etc., and before 04.11.2000, he has served at Thumbakundu and at that time, he used to go to Madurai daily.
18. Therefore, the averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) at paragraph 3 of the sworn affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 to the effect that he used to go to Madurai once in three or four months when he has been serving at Surlipatti is not a correct statement and it is quite clear that the petitioner has not come out with a genuine and bonafide sufficient/good cause and this itself is quite sufficient reason to reject the application, in the considered opinion of this Court.
19. Added further, even when the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) has received the notice in E.P.No.22 of 2001 on 27.03.2001 and appeared through the counsel on 29.03.2001 and appeared through the counsel on 29.03.2001, he has projected the condo nation of delay application only on 31.01.2002.
20. Be that as it may, even though this Court is quite aware of well settled principle that a Court of law must ensure that the substantial justice is to be delivered to the parties by adopting a liberal approach, yet on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the incorrect averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) as P.W.1 before the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002 (as between the averment made by him in paragraph 3 of the sworn statement in I.A.No.99 of 2002 and the admission made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in his cross-examination on 24.03.2003 that before 04.11.2000, he has served at Thumbakundu, he used to go to Madurai daily}, this Court is unable to adopt a liberal approach overriding technicalities and since the petitioner has not made out a bona fide, genuine sufficient/good cause in the application in I.A.No.99 of 2002 and in his evidence as P.W.1 before the trial Court, this Court is perforced to reject the I.A.No.99 of 2002 and on going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002, the same is not tainted with any illegality or material irregularity and resultantly, the civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and viewed in that perspective, the Civil Revision Petition fails.”
And resultantly, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition by affirming the order dated 9/7/2003 in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 1996 passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Periyakulam.
3. The Petitioners in their grounds
