Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 31021
MADRAS HIGH COURT
DHEIVANILLA – Appellant
Versus
Mayilvahanan – Respondent
REV.APPL 50 2023
A court cannot make observations beyond the scope of the proceedings before it.
Headnote:
REVIEW - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 47 RULE 1 - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - Observation made by the court in a civil revision petition regarding the invalidity of a decree passed in a suit, which was beyond the scope of the petition, was removed upon review.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a review application seeking to review an order passed by the court in a civil revision petition. In the impugned order, the court had made an observation regarding the invalidity of a decree passed in a suit, which was beyond the scope of the civil revision petition. The applicants contended that this observation would affect their right to defend an interlocutory application filed before the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the observation made in the impugned order regarding the invalidity of the decree was beyond the scope of the civil revision petition and removed the said observation. However, the court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the application filed by the applicants to implead themselves as parties in the land acquisition proceedings based on the alleged made over decree.
Issues: Whether the observation made by the court in the impugned order regarding the invalidity of a decree passed in a suit was beyond the scope of the civil revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a court cannot make observations beyond the scope of the proceedings before it. The court held that the observation regarding the invalidity of the decree was not necessary for the disposal of the civil revision petition and was therefore beyond its scope.
Final Decision: The court allowed the review application to the extent of removing the observation regarding the invalidity of the decree. The court dismissed the review application as no merit confirming the findings of the trial judge.
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No. 4100 of 2023
against
C.R.P. No. 4813 of 2017
1. Dheivanilla
2. Vasanthi
3. S.Natarajan
4. A.Senthilkumar
5. Dharani
6. Kalaiyarasi
7. Thanikachalam
... Applicants
Versus
1. Mayilvahanan
1. Ramachandran
2. Ravi
3. Indiragandhi
4. Perumal Asari
5. Saroja
6. Rajendiran
7. Venmal
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017
8. Parvathiammal
9. Rajee
10. Ganesan
11. Sivakumar
12. Ganesan
13. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Attur.
14. C.Thangaraj
15. C.A.Thangaraj
... Respondents
Prayer:- Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114
of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order of this Hon'ble Court
dated 31.10.2022 passed in C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017.
For Petitioner
: Mr.N.Subramaniyan
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicant
praying to review the order passed by this court as there is an error while
passing the impugned order, which is beyond the scope of Civil Revision
Petition in respect of an observation made by this court about the decree
passed in O.S.No. 328 of 1981.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned counsel for Review Applicants would submit that the
plaintiff Arumugam in the suit in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 had made over the
decree, based on that, they wanted to implead themselves as necessary
parties in the L.A.O.P. proceedings. On hearing both sides, while disposing
the matter, this Court made an observation with regard to the decree in
O.S.No. 328 of 1981 as it is an invalid decree. Aggrieved over the same, this
Review Application was filed by the Review Applicants stating that scope of
the application is only to implead parties based upon the made over decree,
but this court made an observation that the said decree itself is invalid and
non-est in law, which is beyond the scope of Civil Revision Petition. Hence,
the Review Applicants prayed to review the findings.
4. On perusal of entire order, this Court is not inclined to allow the
Review Application as there is no merit in the application for the reason that
the alleged made over claimed by the Revision Petitioners as such is not
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017
acceptable one and non-est in law. But, the learned counsel for Review
Applicants would submit that before the trial court, already there is an
application filed by the original legal heirs of Arumugam to set aside the
exparte decree. In such circumstances, if any observation is made in respect
of exparte decree in the Civil Revision Petition, which would affect their
right to take defence in the said interlocutary application. Therefore,
considering the said objection, this Court is inclined to remove the following
observations made in paras 6 as well as in para 7 of the order with regard to
the decree passed in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 is beyond the scope of Civil
Revision Petition, which is extracted hereunder :-
“6. ........The conduct of trial judge is unjustifiable one and
the same is amounting to ignorance of law. Therefore, this
court reserves its right to call for explanation from the
concerned officer on the administrative side.
7.................Hence, the decree is totally invalid and nonest in
law. However, based on an invalid decree, the legal heirs of
Arumugam made over the decree in favour of Revision
Petitioner and Respondents 21 and 22, as such is not
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023
against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017
maintainable in law. At the most, the legal heirs of
Arumugam
