D GOVINDARAJULU Vs. LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 'resume' of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this review application would run thus: This court vide judgment dated 09.04.2009 disposed of S.A.No.91 of 2006 partly modifying the judgments passed by both the courts below and virtually enhancing the share of the review applicant herein including certain consequential modifications. The review petitioner herein Govindarajulu, being one among the four appellants in the second appeal preferred this review application on various grounds, without strictly adhering to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the review applicant being an Advocate by profession appearing on his own behalf in his personal capacity set out various factual grounds. However, the gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the grounds of review petition would run thus:

(2.) At this juncture, it is just and necessary to point out that the review application itself is not in order. Even though in the cause title, the review applicants/appellants are shown as 1. D. Govindarajulu, 2. N.G. Sureshchandra Kumar,3. N.G.Premila Devi and 4. N.G.Nirmala Devi in commensurate with the cause title in the Second Appeal, the review application was signed only by Govindarajulu, who is the first appellant in the Second Appeal. For the second appellant Advocate Mr.P.N.Chandrasekaran appeared and the third and fourth appellants did not appear and they were not represented by any one. For R1 Lakshmi Bai, the learned counsel Mr.V.Baskaran appeared. Here, the learned counsel Mr.P.Chandrasekaran appeared in person and made his submissions that he is sailing with the first applicant Govindarajulu and he has not made any other submission and there is also nothing to indicate that except the first applicant, the others shown as applicants in the review application are really applicants in the review application.

(3.) Mr.Govindarajulu, who is an Advocate by profession, made his submissions reiterating the contentions of the review application.