High Court Dismisses Review Application for Non-Consideration of Affidavit. Review Application Fails as Non-Consideration of Facts Does Not Constitute Grounds for Review Under Order 47 of CPC.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Review Application No. 190 of 2026 was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras to review an order dated 06.01.2025 passed in O.S.A.No.256 of 2024. The applicant, K.Shanmughasundaram, contended that the affidavit submitted was not considered by the court during the earlier proceedings. The court noted that non-consideration of certain facts does not automatically provide grounds for a review unless it leads to an error apparent on the record. The court found that the review application sought to re-adjudicate facts that had already been addressed by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Consequently, the court dismissed the review application without costs, affirming that the grounds presented did not warrant further consideration. The judgment was delivered by Justices S.M.Subramaniam and P.Dhanabal on 13-08-2026.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review Application - Grounds for Review - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 - Non-consideration of facts does not automatically warrant a review unless it results in an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the review application attempted to re-adjudicate facts already considered, thus dismissing the application. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the non-consideration of the affidavit constituted a ground for reviewing the order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the review application, stating that the grounds presented did not warrant further consideration and that the application attempted to re-adjudicate facts already addressed.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction
  • Order 47 Rule 1 & 2
  • error apparent
  • non-consideration of facts
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 127

REV.APPL No. 190 of 2026

2026-08-13

S.M.Subramaniam, P.Dhanabal

Mr.T.Kannan, Mr.M.S.Mani

K.Shanmughasundaram

J.Catherine, J.Sheela, A.Muralidharan, A.Santharaj, A.Rangarajan, A.Balamurugan, A.Majubashni, A.Sundaravadanan, V.Ranjani, J.Devaki Jayaraman, A.Padmini, C.Vijayakumari, A.Vijayalakshmi, S.Asokan, S.Vimalavani, B.Jagadeeswaran, B.Vijendira Selvan, B.Sarala, Mohana, Harinee Rukmangathan, Saran Rukmangathan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review application against a prior order in an original side appeal.

Remedy Sought

The applicant sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the review petition.

Filing Reason

The applicant claimed that the affidavit was not considered in the previous order.

Previous Decisions

The order dated 06.01.2025 in O.S.A.No.256 of 2024 was previously decided.

Issues

Whether non-consideration of the affidavit constituted grounds for review Whether the review application attempted to re-adjudicate previously considered facts

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the affidavit was not considered The respondents contended that non-consideration does not warrant a review

Ratio Decidendi

Non-consideration of facts does not automatically warrant a review unless it results in an error apparent on the face of the record.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 06.01.2025 Non-consideration of certain facts raised between parties per se would not constitute a ground to consider reviewing the order. Consequently, the present Review Application is dismissed.

Procedural History

The review application was filed following the order in O.S.A.No.256 of 2024 dated 06.01.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1, Order 47 Rule 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR Against Private Security Agency for Lack of Sanction Under Section 20 of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Court held that prosecution under Section 20 requires prior sanction of the controlling aut...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Entry of Petitioner as Suspect in Charge-Sheet Holding Naming Suspect Without Evidence Illegal. Describing Person as Suspect in Police Report Under Section 173 CrPC Violates Procedure Established by Law and Right to Reputati...