BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Rev.Aplc(MD).No.132 of 2024 in C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022 The Managing Director, Dindigul District Central, Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kooturavu Nagar, Dindigul.

...Petitioner Vs.

1. P.Jeyaraman S/o. Periyasamy Assistant General Manager, Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank

2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.1, State Bank Colony, Nehruji Nagar …Respondents Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the judgment dated

29.09.2023 in C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022.

For Review Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondent : Mr.T.Thirumurugan for R1

ORDER

This Review Application is preferred against the order dated

29.09.2023 in C.R.P(MD).No.2232 of 2022 by this Court.

2.In the review application, it is submitted that, the petitioner is the managing Director of Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., (herein after 'Bank'), Dindigul. This review petition is filed to review the order passed in C.R.P.(MD).No.2232/2022 dated 29.09.2023 confirming the order of the Appellate Co-operative Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul, in C.M.A(CS) No.20/2019 dated 08.02.2022. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Bank suffered huge loss due to misdeeds of its employees including the 1^st respondent herein. Hence, action has been initiated against the wrong doers to recover the public money from their assets and other sources. While so, this Court in the revision petition has held that there is no wilful negligent on the part of the 1^st respondent which requires reconsideration by this Court. It is further submitted that the 1^st respondent during his tenure as Assistant General Manager of the said Bank failed to scrutinize the defective loan applications to the self help groups, for which surcharge proceedings were initiated against him. In the surcharge proceedings, the 1^st respondent was also held responsible for the loss incurred by the said Bank. Hence, the present review petition is filed to review the order passed in C.R.P.No.2232 of 2022.

3.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that, only in the following cases review is maintainable:

'' (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him.

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.''

4.To support his contention he has relied upon on the guidelines in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others reported in CDJ 2013 SC 701

5.Hence, submitted that the review petition is not maintainable.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ''reheard and corrected'', review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an ''appeal in disguise''. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

8.In the cited case, the grounds of review which are maintainable and not maintainable has been clearly stipulated, and the same is extracted as hereunder:

'' 16.Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

A) When the review will be maintainable:-

(1) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowle