Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

&

C.M.P.No. 9589 of 2020

The Estate Officer-cum-Deputy Collector

Office of Deputy Collector (Revenue)

Revenue Complex, Kamaraj Salai, Saram Post,

Pondicherry.

... applicant

Vs

Adimoolam (Died)

1.Muniammal @ Gavoury

2.Vanaja

3.Varshini @ Vanitha

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

4.Latha

5.Sudha

6.Dharanie

7.Sooryakumar

... Respondents

Prayer: The petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section

114 of CPC against the order dated 22.04.2019 in C.M.P.No.9851 of

2018 in C.R.P.Sr.No.37031 of 2018 filed against the order dated

05.01.2010 in M.A.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional

District Judge, Puducherry.

For Applicant

:

Mr. R.Sreedhar

Additional Government Pleader

(Puducherry).

For Respondents

:

Mr. D.Senthil Kumar

1, 2, 4 to 6

For Respondents

:

No Appearance

3 & 7.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

ORDER

The above review application is filed seeking to review the

order dated 22.04.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.9851 of 2018, which was

a petition filed for condoning the delay of 6220 days in filing the Civil

Review Petition, challenging the Judgement and Decree in M.A.No.6

of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. This Court had proceeded to dismiss the petition for

condoning the delay both on the grounds of merits and also by relying

upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012

(3) SCC 563 – Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media

India Limited and Another. This order is now sought to be reviewed

and the grounds on which the review is sought for is that there has

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

been an error in calculating the number of days delay. That apart, the

other grounds are on the merits of the case, which has been considered

and rejected by this Court. The applicant has not made out any case

to show as to how there is an error apparent on the face of the order

under review or as to whether that they have come across new facts

which despite their due diligence could not be raised during the

hearing of the Revision.

3. This Court has taken note of the fact that the applicant has not

been able to establish or prove their contention that the respondent

herein was an encroacher and that he had come into possession of the

property subsequent to the handing over of possession on 28.05.1990.

This Court has also discussed the reasons as to why it has come to the

said conclusion. The applicant if aggrieved by the order ought to have

taken out an appeal and not come up with this review. The petitioner

has not made out any grounds for reviewing the order.

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

4. In the result, the review application is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No

costs.

04.08.2023

kan

Index: Yes/No

Speaking order/non-speaking order

To

The II Additional District Judge,

Puducherry.

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

P.T.ASHA, J.,

kan

Rev.Aplc.No.57 of 2020

04.08.2023

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis