BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Rev Appl(MD)No.123 of 2011 1.Desingh 2.Vellaipandi .. Petitioners/Respondents Vs. Gurusamy .. Respondent/Appellant Review Application filed under section 47 of CPC r/w section 114 of CPC against the Judgement decree passed in Second Appeal No.584 of 2008 dated 01.07.2008 by this Court. For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.Ramesh @ Ramaiah ORDER This Review Application has been filed so as to review the Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2008 passed in Second Appeal No.584 of 2008 by this Court. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.148 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for the reliefs of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions, wherein the present review applicants have been shown as defendants. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has dismissed Original suit No.148 of 2003. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.123 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi. 3. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Second Appeal No.584 of 2008 on the file of this Court. 4. After hearing arguments of both sides this Court has allowed Second Appeal No.584 of 2008 and set aside the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for and in order to review the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.584 of 2008, the present Review Application has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants has meticulously drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph – 15 of the Judgment rendered in Second Appeal No.584 of 2008, wherein this Court has discussed that the property of the plaintiff has been shown as first schedule and its actual east-west measurement is 38.6 feet. The Advocate Commissioner has measured the same and pointed out that from points C1 to F, only 37.3 feet is available. The suit second schedule is nothing but a portion which has been described as D D1, C, C1 and its actual measurement is 1 feet 1 ½ inch and ultimately this Court has pointed out that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get 1 feet 3 inches in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit second schedule. But in the plaint the suit second schedule has been shown as 2½ feet on east west. This Court has decreed the suit as prayed for and in order to review the same, the present Review Application has been filed. 6. It is an established fact that actual east west measurement of the suit first schedule is 38 feet 6 inches. But now available east west measurement is 37.3 inches. Therefore, in the suit second schedule, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get 1 feet 3 inches. 7. As rightly pointed out on the side of the Review Applicants in the plaint east-west of the suit second schedule has been erroneously mentioned as 2½ feet. Therefore, with regard to suit second schedule the plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 1 feet 3 inches towards east-west and to that extent, the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction can easily be granted. 8. So far as the relief of mandatory injunction is concerned, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get the said relief with regard to 1½ inch from points C to D. With the above modifications, this Review Application is liable to be allowed. 9. In fine, this Review Application is allowed without cost. The Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.584 of 2008 are modified as follows: “The appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit second schedule to an extent of 1 feet 3 inches towards east- west. The appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction to an extent of 1½ inch apart from points C to D towards western side mentioned in the Commissioner's plan (Ex.C2) and to that extent, the suit is decreed with cost.“ sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. 2. The Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramiah, Advocate, SR No.27134 + 1 cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, SR No.27055 Rev Appl(MD)No.123 of 2011 17.08.2012 mj RJ/2.1.13 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/