IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26/06/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
C.R.P. (P.D.) No.1024 of 2002
Meiyammai @ Baby Sevugan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. M.Karupanan @ Karuvayan
2. Raji
3. Jayakodi
4. Villalu
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.
gs.
C.R.P. (P.D.) 1024 of 2002