O R D E R

This Review Application has been filed by the Review Petitioner/Respondent in CRP/defendant, raising the ground that the conditional order dated 03.03.2021 passed in Civil Revision Petition directing the Review Petitioner/defendant to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the credit of O.S.160 of 2016, is a huge amount and the defendant is unable to mobilize it.

2. This Court while passing order dated 03.03.2021 in CRP.

(MD).No.931 of 2020 pointed out that the suit is of the year 2016 and after giving ample time to the respondent/defendant to file the written statement, the respondent was set exparte and exparte decree came to be passed on 19.04.2017. After filing of the E.P., the respondent/defendant contested the E.P through an advocate and has also filed a counter after taking maximum time and in the meantime, filed condone delay petition to condone the delay of 662 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. Since the learned Judge has condoned the delay on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff and the revision petitioner has not received the cost, the said amount has been deposited into the Court. This court placing reliance on the decision reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547, Esha Bhatterjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, made it clear that the respondent/defendant is not entitled for the relief of condoning the delay. However, while considering the facts of the case that the decree has been passed as early as on 19.04.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,19,125/-, directed the respondent/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- being the principal amount, within a time frame. It is relevant herein to extract the operative portion of the order as under:-

“6.Accordingly, I.A.No.185 of 2019 shall stand allowed subject to the condition that the respondent/defendant shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- being the principal amount to the credit of O.S.No.160 of 2016 on the file of Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondent/defendant has not deposited the said amount within the above time frame, I.A.No.185 of 2019 shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. On compliance of the above direction, I.A.No.185 of 2019 shall be allowed and the suit be restored and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.160 of 2016 within a period of six months from the date of restoration.”

3. The respondent/defendant did not deposit the amount stipulated in the order, but has now come forward with this present Review Application seeking to review the above order passed in CRP(MD).No.931 of 2020. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224, it is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

4. In the light of the settled proposition of law, this court is of the view that the review petitioner is trying to seek a re-hearing of the matter which is not within the scope of the review. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Review is not appeal in disguise. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner could not point out any error apparent on the face of the record.

5. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that no grounds of review is made out. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected CMP is closed.

05.04.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nvsri J.NISHA BANU,J.

nvsri

05.04.2022