w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ayangaran Film International Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others v/s S. Venmathi & Others

    Review Application No. 48 of 2020

    Decided On, 02 February 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioners: P.L. Narayanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, V.P. Rajendran, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: The Review Application is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of this Court dated 06.12.2019 made in CMP No.13228 of 2019 in AS SR No.130186 of 2018.)

1. The Review Application is filed to review the order dated 06.12.2019 passed in CMP No.13228 of 2019 in A.S.SR No.130186 of 2018.

2. Perusal of the grounds for review reveal that the petitioners have taken an attempt to re-adjudicate the issues on merits.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that all along the petitioners were pursuing the judicial remedy and therefore, the delay was neither willful nor wanton and to be condoned.

4. It is not, as if, the judicial remedy can be pursued and after reaching finality, once again they can file another appeal in respect of judgment and decree passed in a original suit.

5. The facts and circumstances were already adjudicated by this Court and the order was passed on 06.12.2019. The scope of review is undoubtedly limited. Only if there is an error apparent, then alone the power of review can be exercised and not otherwise.

6. As far as the condone delay is concerned, this Court settled the principles that uncondonable delay cannot be condoned and the reasons must be candid for the purpose of condoning enormous delay.

7. In the present case, the delay is more than 5 years and the facts and circumstances were considered by this Court and the grounds raised in the present Review Application to re-adjudicate the matter on merits, cannot be ente

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rtained. Thus, the grounds for reviewing the order is not convincing and therefore, the Review Application No.48 of 2020 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R