Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
K. Radhalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Rathna Hi Tech Engineering, Represented by its Proprietor J. Edwin Thomas, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Review Application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with 114 of CPC against the order of this Court dated 08.06.2015 passed in WP No.16131 of 2015.)
1. The Review Application has been instituted to recall the order dated 08.06.2015 passed in WP No.16131 of 2015.
2. This Court passed final order in the above writ petition, wherein in paragraphs 2 to 5, it has been observed as under:-
“2. The petitioner claims to be running a small shop, submitted a representation dated 26.08.2013 to the first respondent praying for grant of No Objection Certificate in respect of the land in Survey No.151/1B, Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, admeasuring to an extent of 3000 sq.ft. and since the said representation has not been disposed of, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner''s representation dated 26.08.2013, on merits, within a time frame.
4. This Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner''s representation dated 26.08.
Non-communication of final orders causing prejudice to the rights of the review petitioner is a ground for review of the court's order.
Review proceedings under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are strictly limited to correcting apparent errors and do not allow for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case.
A review petition may be allowed if an involved party was not heard, impacting the fairness of the judgment.
A review application is only maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to re-litigate factual aspects already decide....
A review application is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and the court cannot re-hear the case on merits under the guise of review.
Procedural due process requires that all parties receive proper notice before a judgment is issued.
A review application must demonstrate that new evidence was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time of the original order, emphasizing the need for due diligence.
The High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used for routine representations without establishing rights, and such abuse of judicial process....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
