JUDGMENT

This Review Application is filed against the judgment and decree passed in S.A.(MD)No.886 of 2009 dated 30.10.2019. S.A.(MD)No.886 of 2009 was filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.86 of 2001 dated 28.11.2007 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.167 of 1998 dated 27.08.2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai.

2.Against the order of this Court, the review petitioners have filed this review application on the following grounds:

Already a suit was filed in O.S.No.344 of 1990 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai between the same parties. The earlier suit for partition ended in compromise between the parties. The suit in O.S.No.344 of 1990 was dismissed as compromise. In the earlier suit, Muthukannan, th Jeyandran and Krishnamoorthy were seeking for partition of 3/6 share. The compromise outside the Court was recorded. In paragraph no.47, this Court has given a findings that there was no decree whereas there was a decree drafted by the trial Court in O.S.No.344 of 1990 and there is an error apparent on the face of the records and the matter requires review. Without setting aside the decree, the earlier decree is subsisting and two separate suits for same prayer cannot be entertained.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and another reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 791, wherein it is stated as follows:

“In para 17 of the abovementioned decision, it was held:

(M.M. Thomas case, SCC ;. 673)

“17.If such power of correcting its own record is denied to the High Court, when it notices the apparent errors its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down. Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record.”

There is no doubt that the High Court possess all powers in order to correct the errors apparent on the face of record.”

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.Thomas v. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666, wherein it is stated as follows:

“Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary.

Referring to the said passage and relying on the decision of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar a two Judge Bench of this Court in M.V.Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading (P.) Ltd. has observed thus: (AIR Headnote).

Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record.”

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others v. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 592, wherein it is stated as follows:

“Review – Grounds for – patent error – mistake of law –

Held, must be corrected by way of review – further held, leaving the mistake to be rectified by the Supreme Court is not proper – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, S. 22(3)(f) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, OR. 47. R.1.”

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Palalni Roman Catholic Mission, rep. By rev. Father v. S.Bagirathi Ammal, rep. By her husband and power Agent, P.A.

Venkatachalam reported in 2001 3 L.W. 445, wherein it is stated as follows:

“While one is acutely conscious of the very limited scope of review, one's hand are also not tied in circumstances where the error is apparent or there is an obvious or patent mi