The present review application is filed to review the order dated 27.02.2009 made in CRP.(PD).No.1821/2008 on the file of this Court.
2. The review petitioner is first defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent is the second defendant in O.S.No.106 of 2008. The first respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the second respondent. The first respondent also filed I.A.No.444 of 2008 for temporary injunction. In the said application, the petitioner was not made as a party respondent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.552 of 2008 in I.A.No.444 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2008 to implead the petitioner as second respondent in I.A.No.444 of 2008. The said application was dismissed on 16.04.2008 on the ground that already an application was filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.476 of 2008 for the very same relief was dismissed and therefore the present application is not maintainable.
3. Challenging the said order dated 16.04.2008, the petitioner has filed the CRP.(PD).1821 of 2008. In the civil revision petition, plea was raised by the petitioner that the suit itself is not maintainable. In view of such plea being taken, this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in CRP.(PD).No.1821 of 2008 and if necessary, directed the Trial Court to conduct the trial on day to day basis after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides.
4. The petitioner has filed the present review application to reconsider the said order dated 27.02.2009 made in C.R.P(PD).No.1821 of 2008.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.09.2017, there was no representation for the petitioner. Subsequently, a counsel represented the counsel on record for petitioner and sought for adjournment. At his request, the matter was adjourned today. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner.
6. When the review petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the suit itself was dismissed. In the grounds of review petition, the petitioner has raised grounds on merits and submitted that this Court has got power to strike of the plaint under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it was brought to the notice of this Court that suit is not maintainable and abuse of process of Court. This issue cannot be considered and decided in review petition.
7. Hence, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 27.02.2009 passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.1821 of 2008. Accordingly, the review application fails. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2017 Index: Yes/No dh/gsa To
1. K.C.Veerakumar, The President, Erode Mavatta Desiya Sumai Thookkuvor Thozhilalar Sangam, Regulated Marketting Committee, Vellakovil, Erode District.
2.The President, Erode Mavatta Sumai Thookkuvor Thozhilalar Munettra Sangam, Vellakovil, Erode District.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
dh Review Application No.58 of 2009 in C.R.P.(PD).No.1821 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Review Application No.58 of 2009 12.09.2017