The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review application cannot re-agitate issues already considered in a previous appeal, and the grounds for exemption from the law of limitation must be clearly set out in the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Section 114 of CPC r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the decree and judgment dated 23.05.2019 in S.A.No.501 of 2013.)

1. This Review Application has been filed by the respondents 2 to 4 to review the judgment and decree passed by this court in S.A.No.501 of 2013 dated 23.05.2019.

2. The respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.368 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai, against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein for the relief of partition to divide the suit property into two equal shares and allot one such share to them. In the said suit, both the parties entered into a compromise and based on the said compromise, a final decree was passed on 05.09.2001 directing that the plaintiffs therein shall take northern ½ share of the suit property and the first defendant therein (first plaintiff herein) shall take southern ½ share in the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioners herein along with the first plaintiff namely B.K. Babu Sahib (deceased) had filed a suit on 13.08.2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, to declare the decree which was passed in O.S.No.368 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 05.09.2001 is null and void and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs; to restrain the defendants, their men, etc., by means of permanent injunction from claiming any right under the said impugned decree and to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, etc., by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit property.

3. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, by the order dated 11.04.2012 had rejected the said plaint on the ground that the said final decree was already acted upon and hence, the principle of estoppel will apply and also on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs therein had filed an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai, by the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2013 had allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court and directed the plaintiffs to represent the said plaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said judgment and on such representation, the trial court shall take the case on file and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant had filed a second appeal in S.A.No.501 of 2013 before this court. This court after hearing both sides had allowed the said appeal by the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2019 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and restored the order passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 have filed the present review application.

4. Heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Mrs.Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Panneer Selvam, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

5. The point for determination is whether this review application can be entertained?

6. Point:

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the alleged compromise decree was acted upon and hence, the principle of estoppel will apply and also on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, but in the second appeal, the appellants/defendants have taken a new plea that the present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC. He further submitted that this court had allowed the second appeal without considering the fact that the trial court did not reject the plaint on the ground that the present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC. He further submitted that the provision of Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC will apply only when the parties to the compromise wanted to set aside the dec