BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA REVIEW APPLICATION (MD) No.64 OF 2008 Shanthinikethan Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Correspondent, Mrs.Meema George Cherian, Ambilikai, Dindigul District. .. Applicant vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Palani, Dindigul. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 3.Mrs.Roselyn Mary .. Respondents Review Application filed under Order 47, Rule 1 & 2 r/w Sec.114 of C.P.C. praying to review the order dated 28.8.2008 passed in W.A.(MD)No.507 of 2008 on the file of this Court. !For petitioner ...Mr.A.Immanuel ^For 3rd respondent ...Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made
by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J)
Heard Mr.A.Immanuel, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner
as well as Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
third respondent and perused the materials on record.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioner, we are of
the view that he wants to re-argue the matter.
3. It is now well settled that review Proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C.,. Under Order 47,
Rule 1 of C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said
to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to
exercise the power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C.,. In exercise of
jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C., it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. A review petition has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in guise. A useful
reference can be made to the Judgment in Parison Devi and others v. Sumitra Devi
and others [1998 (1) CTC 25].
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above
judgment, the grievance of the review petitioner against the judgment of this
Court dated 28.8.2008 in W.A.(MD)No.507 of 2008 cannot be ventilated under the
provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.,. Hence, the Review Application is
dismissed. No costs.
asvm
To
1.The District Elementary
Educational Officer,
Palani, Dindigul.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.