Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 29588
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M.Subramaniam, J
Pushpalatha – Appellant
Versus
Anandakrishnan – Respondent
Review Application Nos.175 & 177 of 2021|C.M.P.Nos.18991 & 18999 of 2021|C.M.S.A.No.19 of 2013|C.M.S.A.No.18 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Thiagarajan
For the Respondents: A.Ganesan
A review petition cannot be used as a tool for rehearing the matter on merits; it is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and changing counsel to raise merit-based arguments is impermissible.
Headnote:The petitioner filed review applications under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of orders passed in C.M.S.A.Nos.19 and 18 of 2013. The petitioner contended that she was ready for matrimonial reunion and highlighted the need to care for her unmarried daughter. The respondent countered that he was willing to contribute to the daughter's marriage expenses and that no grounds for review existed. The primary issue was whether the grounds raised by the petitioner constituted an 'error apparent on the face of the record' as required for a review. The court reasoned that a review petition is not a rehearing of the case on merits and that the mere existence of two possible views or the repetition of previously overruled arguments does not justify reopening concluded adjudications. The court further observed that changing counsel to re-argue merits is not a permissible practice in review proceedings. Consequently, both the Review Applications stand dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner seeks review based on willingness for matrimonial reunion and child welfare, while the respondent contests these as untenable. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. review is permissible only upon showing an error apparent on the face of the record, not for re-evaluating merits. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. changing legal counsel to seek a review on merits is an improper professional practice and legally unsustainable. (Para 8) |
| 4. absence of error apparent on record justifies the dismissal of the review applications. (Para 9 , 10) |
COMMON ORDER
The Review Applications have been filed to review the orders passed by this Court in C.M.S.A.Nos.19 & 18 of 2013 dated 22.02.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner/wife was always ready and willing for matrimonial reunion and an order of Restitution was also passed in her favour. Despite the order, it is the respondent/husband, who refused for reunion and therefore, the orders passed by this Court are to be reviewed.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has to take care of her grown up daughter, who is yet to be married and thus, the order of divorce confirmed by this Court is to be reviewed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention by stating that the respondent/husband extended all co-operation for the marriage of his daughter and he is ready to contribute the entire marriage expenses within his capacity. When the respondent/husband is ready and willing to co-operate for the welfare and future of their daughter, the orders passed by this Court need not be reviewed and the grounds raised in this regard by the petitioner are untenable.
5. Repetition of old and over-ruled argument is not enough to reopen the concluded adjudications and that mere possibility of two view on the subject, cannot be a ground for review.
6. In the present case, the merits of the case were elaborately considered including the order of Restitution passed by the competent Court. Thus, the grounds raised on merits in this regard cannot be construed as an error apparent for the purpose of reviewing the orders.
7. In the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (5) SCC 75], the Apex Court reiterated that “Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a Review Petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.”
8. In respect of the present Review Applications, the petitioner has changed the Advocate and filed Review Applications. The change of lawyer in the Review Applications was viewed seriously by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The lawyer, who appeared in the main case has to appear in the Review Application for the purpose of establishing the error apparent on record. By changing the counsel, litigants cannot be permitted to seek review of the order by raising certain merits. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs. N.Raju Reddiar and another [(1997) 9 SCC 736] observed as follows:
“1.It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr.Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr.V.Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-04-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr.S.U.K.Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as “application for clarification”, on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases wher
