S RAMACHANDRAN Vs. G SUBBARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application No. 101 of 2003 : This application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., read with Section 114, C.P.C., to review the Judgment of this Court dated 1-8-2003 passed in A.S. No. 788 of 1997. The Review Petitioner S. Ramchandran is the Plaintiff. The Respondents 1 to 4 are the Appellant/Defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 1001 of 1990 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

(2.) The Review Petitioner/Plaintiff and the First Respondent/D-1 are cousins. Relating to the family properties, the Review Petitioner/ Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1001 of 1990 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for partition and separate possession of his share, including the properties standing in the name of their ancestors and the properties standing in the name of the Respondents/ Defendants.The suit ended in compromise. The said compromise was challenged by the Defendants 1 to 4/Appellants in A.S. No. 788 of 1997. By the judgment dated 1-8-2003, this Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the matter of the lower Court for fresh trial.

(3.) While the matter was heard and disposed of, the Memo of Compromise filed along with the petition in I.A. No. 117 of 1995 was not available. It was then represented that the matters relating to I.A. No. 117 of 1995 were misplaced by the trial Court. In that context , this Court in the judgment dated 1-8-2003 observed thus : "........ Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is highly doubtful whether the final decree is, as a matter of fact, prepared on the basis of I. A. No. 117 of 1995..........." ".............Admittedly, the papers relating to I.A. No. 117 of 1995 are not available. There is no proof that I.A. No. 117 of 1995 was ever filed............" "......... We have found that it is highly doubtful whether the second compromise memo was filed and I.A. No. 117 of 1995 was registered and taken on file and the decree was passed in terms thereof. Admittedly, I.A. No. 117 of 1995 is missing and the officers who had handled it have admitted the loss."