Saravana Pillai vs A.S. Mariappan, Kothandam Chettiar, Settiappan, Kaliammal, Shenbagavalli, Perumal Chettiar, Shenbagavalli Rangasami Naidu (died), Dr. Balasubramaniam, Velusamy, Manapparai Municipality, R. Senthilvel, Shyamala and Chandra

M. Chockalingam, J.—These three review applications are filed by the appellants in S.A.Nos.978, 1195 and 1236 of 1990.

The applicant/appellant was the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.652/82, wherein he sought for a declaration of his title to the property, while the

respondents 1 and 4 in Review Application No. 148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 665/82 for mandatory injunction, and the fifth respondent

in Review Application No. 148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 714/82 for declaration of her title. It is admitted by both sides that the subject

matter in all the three suits were the two portions of the same property. This Court heard both sides at the time of the second appeals elaborately

and after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence, has delivered a judgment with the reasonings in full. Now, the applicant/appellant has come

forward with these review applications seeking for the review of the judgment of this Court in the three second appeals. A perusal of the affidavit

filed in support of these review applications would make it abundantly clear that the appellant seeks for re-appreciation of evidence by making

submissions once again. Apart from that, the appellant wants to put forth certain additional documents which he could not produce earlier.

Needless to say that the power of review could be exercised only on the discovery of new and important evidence, which even after the

exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review and could not be brought forth at the time when the

judgment was made. A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, if found, may also lead to the exercise of power of review. It is also

well settled that the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, since this would be within the

province of court of appeal. It has to be borne in mind that review is not an appeal in disguise. All the grounds in the review applications and also

the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant would clearly indicate that the applicant seeks for reversal of the judgment

rendered by this court in the three second appeals by way of reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence, already relied on by the

parties. The court is of the view that in exercise of the powers of review, it cannot be done, and if done so, it would be nothing but exceeding its

jurisdiction.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it has to be necessarily held that these review applications are devoid of merits, and the earlier judgment of

this court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, so as to make a review. The review applications are liable to be

dismissed.

In the result, these review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Consequently, connected CMPs are also

dismissed.