S P BALAKRISHNAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CHENGELPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVIEW Application No.19 of 2007: This application has been filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal seeking to review the judgment passed in the appeal in A.S.No.57 of 1996 on 07.09.2006 and thereby to restore the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1993 in O.S.No.49 of 1988 on the file of the trial court. M.P.No.1 of 2007:

(2.) THIS is an application seeking interim injunction against the 1st respondent from in anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. M.P.No.1 of 2008:

(3.) LEARNED Special Government Pleader (AS) would submit in his argument that the review application is not sustainable in law as it is not satisfying the requirements of Section 114 of CPC or Order 47 Rule 1 CPC because this court did not commit any mistake as alleged by the petitioner. He would further submit that this court had elaborately discussed the evidence before the trial court and had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not prove his title to the suit property but had decided that the suit property was a 'Chathram Poramboke' belonging to Government and allowed the appeal. He would also submit that this court did not discuss the point of res-judicata in the course of its finding and even it was considered to have discussed and erred in finding that the suit is barred by res-judicata, the judgment need not be reviewed since the evidence adduced on both sides were appreciated and it was found by this court that the petitioner/plaintiff did not establish his case. He would also submit that when there was no mistake committed by the court, there is no reason for reviewing the judgment and the decree passed by the court. He would also submit that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence in the review application is not at all sustainable since there is no plea put forth by the petitioner in his plaint that by virtue of the sale deed dated 27.02.1936, his predecessor in title obtained right over the said property. He would also submit that even otherwise if the document is relevant, it should have been produced by the petitioner at the appellate stage and not in the review after the judgment has been pronounced. He would also submit in his argument that the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he did not know about the whereabouts of the 2nd defendant, but the 2nd defendant filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14777 of 2007 as if she had filed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1988 on the file of Sub court, Poonamallee and was decreed in her favour. When this conduct of the 2nd defendant is considered with the evidence of the P.W.1, it would establish a collusion in between them to knock away the Government property as theirs. He would also submit that the reception of additional evidence would only lie in the first appeal and this being the review of the judgment would not entail the petitioner to file additional evidence even if they are required for disposal of the case. He would also bring it to the notice of this court a judgment of this court reported in 1999 (I) CTC 30 in between "The Managing Director, Hindustan Photo Films Co. Ltd, Indu Nagar, Ootacamund and others vs. H.B. Vinoba and others" and a judgment of Hon'ble Apex court reported in (2008) 11 SCC 107 in between "T. Thimmaiah (dead) by LRs. vs. Venkatachala Raju (dead) by Lrs." for the principle that the same facts which were considered by the single judge while passing the judgment and decree need not be re-examined to come to a different conclusion in the review. Therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the applications filed by the petitioner.