High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Meiyammai @ Baby Sevugan v. M.Karupanan @ Karuvayan - C.R.P. (P.D.) No.1024 of 2002  RD-TN 407 (26 June 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
C.R.P. (P.D.) No.1024 of 2002
Meiyammai @ Baby Sevugan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. M.Karupanan @ Karuvayan
5. Arivagam .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed against the order and decree dated 14.6.1999 made in I.A. No.77 of 1998 in FRA No.43 of 1991 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) Madurai, for the relief stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Subramanian
:O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree dated 14.6.1999 made in I.A.No.77 of 1998 in F.R.A. No.43 of 1991 by the Revenue Court and the Special Deputy Collector, Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
3. Even though a vivid order has been passed by the lower court, however not touching the point of review, a direction, especially regarding the powers of review by the Court of Revenue is sought for on merits. So far as the powers of the lower court to review is concerned, it is Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. which makes it clear that it has got all the powers to entertain a review application. Further more, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would also bring to the notice of the Court the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants ( Payment of Fair Rent) Rules 1956, wherein Rule 4(i) is to the effect that every Rent Court and Rent Tribunal constituted under this Act shall have the powers exercisable by a Civil Court in the trial of suit and in appeals, (ii) the Proceedings of the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal shall be summary and shall, as far as possible, be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Having regard to these legal provisions and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the face of the order passed by the authority below, it is expressed as though it has no powers of review, and the Rent Court may not necessarily agree with the review sought for provided on facts it is not agreeable for the Court and within the purview and limitations of review, and as advocated by the Supreme Court that unless there are errors apparent on the face of the record or clerical errors or typographical or error that occurs in the calculation of figures, there is no reason on the part of any Court to interfere with either the reasons assigned or the conclusions arrived at in the judgment or order. Therefore, applying the parameters propounded by the Supreme Court, the Rent Court is within its powers to assess the case of the petitioner on the application for review and to pass an order on merits and in accordance with law. Instead of this, the Rent Court, in hastily concluding that it does not have the powers of review, has committed an error and hence this order becomes liable to be set aside.
5. In result, the Court of Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Madurai is hereby directed to entertain the review petition, which would be filed by the petitioner herein within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and to ose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, with due opportunity for both parties to be heard, within sixty days thereafter.
The civil revision petition, since being on this point of jurisdiction, is disposed of with the above remarks. Consequently, C.M.P. No.8431 of 2002 is closed. 26.6.2002 V.KANAGARAJ, J.
C.R.P. (P.D.) 1024 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.