SHANMUGAM SERVAI Vs. P PERIYAKARUPPAN SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Seeking the review of the judgment delivered by me on 4-8-1994 in S.A. 839 of 1994, under O.47, R.1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present petition is filed. I have rendered the following judgment on 4-8-1994 when the Second Appeal came for admission :-

(2.) While seeking the review of the above order, Mr. Sudarsana Natchlappah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would frankly concede that there was no error of law or facts apparent on the face of the judgment. But, however his endeavour was that a new fact was found discovered under the pretext of some documentary evidence which directly get itself involved in the instant case and it would give a total guidance for the proper adjudication of the matter in hand; While stating so, learned counsel would advert to O.47, R.1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:

(3.) Adverting to the above procedural law, it was argued that the suit property was covered in the patta pass book scheme of the particular revenue District during the year 1976-77 and then it was re-surveyed and accordingly the persons found in possession of the suit property were subscribed with their names mutatis and mutandis, as recorded in the revenue records and such patta pass book and the connected revenue documents prove the title of the appellant and those records have not been produced before the Court earlier and only after the impugned judgment was rendered by this Court, the petitioner came to know the existence of the said document and that therefore, he should be given an opportunity to produce the same, which would amount to a new discovery covered under the sub-rule (c) of Rule 1 of O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.