9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he review applicant herein were dismissed as not maintainable - It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits. There are no error apparent on the face of record in the judgment, passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Review Application fails - the Review Application is dismissed. - V. Dhanapalan And V.M. Velumani, JJ. For the Appellant : S. Seenivasagam. For the Respondents : V.R. Venkatesan. ORDER V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V.R. Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. N.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du Co-operative Societies Act, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- together with 19% interest from 27.03.1997 was arrived at, being the loss caused to the review applicant Society. A criminal complaint was also lodged against the first respondent and others and the said criminal case is pending. 5. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant Society has not disputed the first respondent's liability arrived at Rs.1,90,000/- and payment of the same by him. Learned counsel also agreed that there is no impediment for the first respondent in receiving the terminal benefits. In view of the admitted facts and following the judgment 2007 (2) MLJ 92 [G.Manoharan Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.07.2013 passed in W.A.(MD) No. 502 of 2009. 10. From the records, it is seen that the review applicant did not contest the claim of the first respondent on merits in the writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the review applicant admitted the contentions of the first respondent. Based on the said admission only, an order was passed in the writ petition. The review application and the writ appeal filed by the review applicant herein were dismissed as not maintainable. W.A.(MD) No. 502 of 2009 filed against the order dated 26.07.2007 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 4636 of 2004, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the review applicant is not entitled to agitate the issue on merits. It is well settled th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Chennai - 1 and others], in which, one of us [V.DHANAPALAN, J.] is a party, has considered the scope of judicial review, wherein the decision of the Honourable Apex Court was noted with approval. Paragraph No. 9 of the said Judgment reads as under: 9. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC can be exercised by a court of law, if the order in question comprises a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Once an order is pronounced, it should not be altered, unless there is an apparent error. Law is well settled that erroneous finding is not a ground for review, so also improper consideration for that matter. In review application, the court does not sit in appeal over its own judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
