M.Peter Vs The Management of

M.Peter vs The Management of

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 25, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1616582

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1616582
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar,Honourable Mr.Justice M.Jothiraman
Decided On: Jun 25, 2026
Case Number: REV.APLC(MD)/87/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Peter

Respondent

The Management of

Excerpt

.....the same.for petitioner : mr.c.k.chandrasekar for mr.s.arunachalamorder(order of the court was made by n.sathish kumar, j.) this review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by this court in c.m.p.(md) no.3466 of 2026 in w.a.s.r.(md) no.61000 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of a delay of 525 days in representing the writ appeal was dismissed.2.the application was dismissed on the ground that the reasons assigned in the accompanying affidavit were not satisfactory and that no sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay. 3.the present review petition has been filed along with a better affidavit. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the present affidavitcontains proper and detailed reasons explaining the delay, the earlier orderdeserves to be reviewed.4.we are unable to accept the said contention. the so-called better affidavit has been filed only after the earlier application was dismissed on merits. entertaining such an affidavit at this stage would amount to sitting in appeal over our own order. it would also, in effect, permit the petitioner to substitute the original pleadings with an entirely new set of pleadings after a final decision has already been rendered.5.merely on the basis of an affidavit filed subsequent to the dismissal of the application, the order cannot be reviewed. we find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction. 6.accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. no costs. [n.s.k.,j.] [m.j.r.,j.] 25.06.2026 ncc : yes / no index : yes / no internet : yes amn.sathish kumar, j.andm.jothiraman,j.am

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
M.Peter ... Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant vs. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Thirunelveli) Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Rep. by its General Manager, Nagercoil. ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent PRAYER : Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 17.03.2026 in C.M.P(MD)No.3466 of 2026 in W.A.S.R(MD)No.61000 of 2024 filed by the applicant and allow the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for Mr.S.Arunachalam

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by this Court in C.M.P.(MD) No.3466 of 2026 in W.A.S.R.

(MD) No.61000 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of a delay of 525 days in representing the writ appeal was dismissed.

2.The application was dismissed on the ground that the reasons assigned in the accompanying affidavit were not satisfactory and that no sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay. 3.The present Review Petition has been filed along with a better affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the present affidavit

contains proper and detailed reasons explaining the delay, the earlier order

deserves to be reviewed.

4.We are unable to accept the said contention. The so-called better affidavit has been filed only after the earlier application was dismissed on merits. Entertaining such an affidavit at this stage would amount to sitting in appeal over our own order. It would also, in effect, permit the petitioner to substitute the original pleadings with an entirely new set of pleadings after a final decision has already been rendered.

5.Merely on the basis of an affidavit filed subsequent to the dismissal of the application, the order cannot be reviewed. We find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction. 6.Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. No costs. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 25.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties M.Peter vs The Management of Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar,Honourable Mr.Justice ...