Rev.Aplc(MD)No.51 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on

: 06.06.2023

Pronounced on

: 08.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.51 of 2022

in

C.M.P.(MD)No.1695 of 2022

1.Ayyathal

2.Krishnamoorthy

Narayanan (Died)

3.N.Ramesh

4.Indira

... Petitioners

Vs.

Jeyandiran (died)

1.Jeyaprakash

2.J.Ganesan

3.J.Narayanamoorthy

4.Muthukannu

... Respondents

PRAYER : This Review Application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and

Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the judgment and

decree in S.A.(MD)No.886 of 2009 dated 30.10.2019 passed by this Court.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S.Natarajan, Senior Counsel

For M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan

For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

1 / 16

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

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.51 of 2022

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,

Jeyandran and Krishnamoorthy were seeking for partition of 3/6^th 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

2 / 16

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

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.51 of 2022

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.”

3 / 16

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

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.51 of 2022

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 re