9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Kannan Kumar for R1 Mr. A.N. Thambidurai for R2 to R5 Special Government Pleader. ORDER ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 made in W.P.No.6516 of 2017, the 7th Respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this Review petition seeking to review the same. 2. The writ petitioner, namely M.Siva, originally filed W.P.No.6516 of 2017 seeking a direction to the 5th respondent to take action against the Review Petitioner / 7th Respondent's unauthorised construction located at Door No.84, 85-A, Kumbakonam Road, Ward-A, Block No.50, T.S.No.37, 38, 39, Panruti Town as per the letters of the 4th Respondent dated 10.06.2016 and 15.12.2017 and by affording opportunity to all concerned. In sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has obtained sanctioned Plan only to an extent of ground floor + first floor and beyond the first floor, there is no Planning approval granted by the authorities. That apart, there is also a construction in the basement, which has not been approved by the authorities. Merely making an application for construction of additional floors could not be construed that there is a deeming permission granted to the 7th respondent to construct the building in violation of the Plan. In this case, as stated supra, admittedly there is no Planning permission given by any one, much less the authorities in question beyond ground floor + first floor. 14. As far as the undisputed facts are concerned, there is a building in existence which is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1920 and contended that it does not fall under any of the said provisions, this Court has taken note of the entire facts and passed final orders and the Supreme Court has come down heavily with regard to encroachment matters. That apart, there is no ground to review this order. 6. To maintain a review application, the review petitioner must satisfy the three requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under: (i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made; (ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 9. In 'Shanmuga Sundara Nadar vs.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Chairman, Madras and others', reported in 1988 (2) L.W. 57 (MAD.), this Court held as under: "The power to review is a restricted power which authorises the Court to look through the judgment not in order to substitute a fresh or second judgment but in order to correct it or improve it, because some material which it ought to have considered has escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. The Court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
