KRISHNAN Vs. G JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment delivered by this Court dated 28.01.2003 in S.A.No.1642 of 2003, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed.

(2.) THE short facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the review application, are as follows:

(3.) COMBATING the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the said argument was never raised in the pleadings or in the course of evidence. The parties had entered into the agreement in 1970 and pursuant to the said agreement, a lane was left out in the rear side and for several years, the purchasers are enjoying the same. Moreover, the vendor of the revision petitioner was also a party to the agreement and even in the sale deed executed in favour of the applicant by his vendor, the rear portion was referred to as the common pathway. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the judgment rendered by this Court. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and under such circumstances, the review application is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments reported in the case of PARISON DEVI ..vs.. SUMITRA DEVI (1998(I) CTC 25), JAGANNATH, L ..vs.. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALANI (2006(2) CTC 809) and RAJESWARI ..vs.. SRI BHUVANESWARI CYCLE MART, REP.BY ITS M.D., (2007(5) CTC 588).