This review application has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2009 passed in CRP (PD) No.2677 of 2008 on the file of this Court.
2. A 'resume' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this review application would run thus:
This Court, on 09.01.2009 passed the order; the operative portion of which is extracted here under:
".....Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to place the documents before the Court. However it is open for the respondent to raise objection at the time of marking the documents and subject to deciding such objection along with the suit, they shall be marked."
3. The respondent/defendant filed this review application seeking review on the main ground that the lower Court in the order dated 30.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.277 of 2008 indicated clearly as to how the plaintiff was indulging in dilatory tactics and after giving its finding alone, dismissed the said I.A., which was not perverse warranting interference by this Court. Hence, he prays for reviewing the order dated 09.01.2009 passed by this Court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant herein reiterating the grounds of review would develop his argument to the effect that in the suit O.S.No.800 of 1990, the Court concerned passed a valid decree, consequent upon which E.P. also was filed and the sale deed was executed by the Court after the plaintiff therein had deposited the entire sale consideration, which was also subsequently withdrawn by the defendant therein, viz., Sengottu Vel Gounder; once again the matter is not expected to be reopened by the plaintiff in the present suit by trying to mark those documents and confuse the issue and protract the proceedings, and that too in the wake of the lower Court having clearly given its finding in paragraph 6 of its order.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the review petitioner would by inviting the attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by this Court, advance and set forth his argument that absolutely there is no necessity to review the earlier order passed by this Court, as there is no error apparent in the order, and there is also no indication that this Court has not adhered to any of the provisions of law or applied the law erroneously; there is also nothing to point out or spotlight that subsequent to the passing of the order, certain new facts came to the knowledge of the review petitioner so as to enlighten this Court; as such, absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or scintilla, dot or miniscule extent of reasons or points in favour of the review petitioner to seek review of the earlier order passed by this Court.
7. Trite the proposition of law is that review is possible only if there is any point which would attract Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. But it is obvious that there is no such error highlighted and as such, a review is not possible. However, the learned counsel for the review petitioner would implore and entreat, pray and appeal, that the lower Court might not be given to understand that this Court upheld the contentions of the plaintiff in the revision petition. I would like to highlight that this Court in the earlier order only condoned the delay in filing the documents which the plaintiff attempted to file before the Court and nothing more. Further more, I would also accept the request of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that a time limit has to be framed for early disposal, as the matter is of the year 1997. Hence, while dismissing this review application, I would direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit itself within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I would reiterate what I stated in paragraph No.6 of my earlier order dated 09.01.2009 relating to recording of objection and deciding it along with the suit.
Accordingly, this review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gms