1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM REVIEW APPLICATION(MD)No.74 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MD) No. 2 of 2011 in SECOND APPEAL No.157 of 2011 A.Selvamoorthy .. Applicant/Appellant Vs. A.Chellathangam .. Respondent/Respondent This Petition has been filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 13.06.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2011 by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadayalan ORDER This review application has been filed so as to review the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2011 by this Court. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.856 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for the reliefs of partition and separate possession, wherein the present applicant has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.856 of 1996 a preliminary decree has been passed and the same has been challenged in Appeal Suit No.57 of 2010 before the first appellate forum. The first appellate Court after considering the available evidence on record has dismissed the Appeal Suit No.57 of 2010. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, Second Appeal No.157 of 2011 has been preferred on the file of this Court. 3. In Second Appeal No.157 of 2011 this Court has heard the rival submissions put forth on either side and ultimately dismissed the same and thereby confirmed the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Court below. In order to review the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2011, the present Review Application has been filed at the instance of the appellant/defendant as review applicant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has contended that in the suit first item it has been specifically mentioned that the partible property is in extent of 84 ares out of 89 ares and the Commissioner has erroneously divided as 89 ares and further no pathway is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 given in suit item No.10. Under the said circumstances the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2011 is liable to be reviewed. 5. It is seen from the records that in the suit first item only 84 ares out of 89 ares is shown. If the Advocate Commissioner has erroneously divided the total extent of 89 ares, the same can be rectified by way of filing another petition for passing final decree. Likewise pathway right is not given in suit item No.10 and the same can also be corrected in final decree petition. Since the aspects mentioned on the side of the review applicant can be rectified by way of filing a petition before the lower Court, the present review application is not at all maintainable, since this Court has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, viewing from any angle the present review application deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this review application deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. The review applicant is directed to take steps so as to rectify the mistake pointed out by him by way of filing a separate petition in Original Suit No.856 of 1996. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(A.S) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. rj2 1.THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, NAGERCOIL. 2.THE SECOND additional DISTRICT MUNSIF, NAGERCOIL. 3.THE SECTION OFFICER, VR SECTION, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. SB 23/12/2011 2P 4C REVIEW APPLICATION(MD)No.74 of 2011 30.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/