ORDER :

PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W Section 114 of CPC to grant leave to the petitioner/appellant herein to file the present review application.

I am faced with a rather strange conundrum of the High Court on its Administrative side seeking leave to review an order passed by it on its judicial side, particularly when the High Court is not even a party to the proceedings leave alone an aggrieved party. Is this Court therefore confronting a two faced JANUS?

2. To appreciate the petition now before this Court, namely, a petition seeking leave to review the order dated 05.05.2022, it is necessary to set out the facts in the various petitions filed seeking exemption from the payment of Court fees which form the backdrop for the review.

3. This Court by the order which is the subject matter of review had answered the following issues:-

"(1) Whether the provisions of Rule 24 would apply to Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act without giving proof of the indigent circumstances.

(2) Whether the petitioners/claimants who have obtained exemption can withdraw the amounts deposited without paying the Court Fees."

4. This Court on considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and its rules had passed an order stating that in order to avail the exemption from paying Court fees in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions contemplated under Order XXXIII and XLIV had to be followed and the exemption in so far the claim petitions before the Tribunal is concerned, it would be at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. However, taking note of the varying methods of such discretion being exercised this Court had framed certain guidelines after hearing the amicus curiae, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and the Special Government Pleader. It is these guidelines that are now sought to be reviewed, rather strangely by the High Court on a resolution adopted by the Administrative Committee operating on the Administrative side. The incongruous situation that has now been placed before this Court is that this Court without being aggrieved over its own order is now being directed by an Administrative Resolution to review its order. The review application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.

5. The four grounds that have been put forward for seeking the review briefly are as follows:-

i. The filing of the affidavit as contemplated in paragraph no.53(a) of the order under review is beyond the scope of the Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1989 which are in pari materia with Order 33 of the CPC.

ii. The attestation of the affidavit by a notary public would cause prejudice to the claimants.

iii. Paragraph No.53 (d) and (f) have been stipulated in the rule and adding of procedure would result in prejudice to the interest of the claimant and caused practical difficulties for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

iv. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition which was before the Court was only filed to seek exemption from the payment of Court fee under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the guidelines in para 53 (a) to (f) are beyond the scope of the proceedings.

Each and every one of the above grounds are grounds, if any, which are available to an aggrieved party. The High Court is neither a party to the proceeding nor are they aggrieved by these guidelines.

6. Before adverting to the lis before me viz; the petition seeking leave, it is necessary to extract certain provisions:-

Section 114 of the CPC - Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved –

(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order, and