Skip to content


Gengusamy and Others Vs. Chrispinraj and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReview Application (MD) No. 156 of 2015
Judge
AppellantGengusamy and Others
RespondentChrispinraj and Another
Excerpt:
.....judgment and decree passed in c.m.a.(md).no.1602 of 2010 on the file of this court.) order: 1. the review application is filed to review the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2013 passed in c.m.a.(md).no.1602 of 2010 on the file of this court. 2. the learned counsel for the applicant mainly seeks review of the order on the ground that this court ought to have looked into ex.p.17 which shows that in the month of may, 2008 salary for a sum of rs.4,194/- was granted for the period of 19.5.2008 to 31.05.2008 and a sum of rs.10,000/- each was granted from the month of june to september and november 2008. 3. it is further argued that this court had not properly appreciated the documents produced before the tribunal while arriving at the conclusion in respect of fixation of salary. the receipt of.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C to review the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.(MD).No.1602 of 2010 on the file of this Court.)

Order:

1. The Review Application is filed to review the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2013 passed in C.M.A.(MD).No.1602 of 2010 on the file of this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly seeks review of the order on the ground that this Court ought to have looked into Ex.P.17 which shows that in the month of May, 2008 salary for a sum of Rs.4,194/- was granted for the period of 19.5.2008 to 31.05.2008 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- each was granted from the month of June to September and November 2008.

3. It is further argued that this Court had not properly appreciated the documents produced before the Tribunal while arriving at the conclusion in respect of fixation of salary. The receipt of the income of the deceased has been shown as Rs.4,194/- and a sum of Rs.6,000/- was taken as the notional income of the deceased. The employee of the Airtel Company has been examined as Ex.P.17 and he has stated that the deceased was working as a Team Leader and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and to establish the same, the payment voucher was produced along with salary certificate.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the review application filed by the applicants, stating that all the grounds raised by the applicants are relating to the merits of the case and no error is apparent on the record and the present review application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised in the review application are relating to the merits of the case which are relevant facts and it is well known that the factual aspects cannot be adjudicated in the review application and if any error apparent on the face of the record alone has to be modified. In the absence of any error on record, this Court is not inclined to consider the review application and the same is devoid of merits. Hence, the review application is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //