Skip to content


The Corporation of Madras Vs. P.G. Arunachalam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRev. Writ Misc. Petn. No. 9117 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1974Mad288
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 114 - Order 47, Rule 1
AppellantThe Corporation of Madras
RespondentP.G. Arunachalam
Cases Referred(Mad)(L. Sivanarayanalal v. Corpn. of Madras
Excerpt:
- .....the writ petition should have been dismissed.' admittedly, the judgment of the division bench (veeraswami, c. j. and gokulakrishnan j.) in w. a. 188 of 1967 (mad)(l. sivanarayanalal v. corpn. of madras, represented by its commissioner and another) has not been brought to my notice. the petitioner pleaded 'inadvertence' for his not producing the judgment of the division bench. i am afraid, under order 47, rule 1 'inadvertence' is not a ground. the judgment of the division bench was delivered as early as 15-7-1969, and it is significant to notice that the petitioner was the first respondent in that case. the respondent in w. p. 230 of 1971 (the review petitioner) was possessed of the knowledge of the existence of the judgment of the division bench since 1969. the plea of 'inadvertence'.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner prays for review of the judgment of this court made in W. P. 230 of 1971, dated 28-8-1973.

2. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to get the order in question reviewed is set out here below.

The petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the respondent in the writ petition was not able to produce the abovementioned unreported decision on the date of hearing of the writ petition. The respondent did not urge anything against any procedural aspect of the enquiry. Hence if the decision has been placed before this Honourable Court, the writ petition should have been dismissed.' Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench (Veeraswami, C. J. and Gokulakrishnan J.) in W. A. 188 of 1967 (Mad)(L. Sivanarayanalal v. Corpn. of Madras, represented by its Commissioner and another) has not been brought to my notice. The petitioner pleaded 'inadvertence' for his not producing the judgment of the Division Bench. I am afraid, under Order 47, Rule 1 'inadvertence' is not a ground. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered as early as 15-7-1969, and it is significant to notice that the petitioner was the first respondent in that case. The respondent in W. P. 230 of 1971 (the review petitioner) was possessed of the knowledge of the existence of the judgment of the Division Bench since 1969. The plea of 'inadvertence' is not a ground within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 for reviewing the order of this court, Petition dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.


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