ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
2. The Review Application has been filed by the petitioners, to review the order passed by this Court, on 9.3.2010, in C.R.P.(PD)No.568 of 2009. This Court had passed the order, dated 9.3.2010, in C.R.P.(PD)No.568 of 2009, dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 2.4.2008, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.
3. This Court had passed the order, dated 9.3.2010, dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said order read as follows: "12. Even though this Court, by its order, dated 13.11.2007, made in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2007, had remanded the matter back to the trial Court, after setting aside the order, dated 10.7.2007, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, to consider the evidence of one Subbathal and to pass orders, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, the trial Court had found that no evidence had been let in by a witness in the name of 'Subbathal'. Even though the petitioners had claimed that, due to a clerical error, the name of Subbathal had been mentioned in the order of this Court, dated 13.11.2007, instead of the name of Karupaathaal, from the affidavit cum deposition, in I.A.Nos.650, 651 and 649 of 2004, it is seen that one Karuppaathaal, aged about 56 years, residing in Pappampatti village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, had deposed on behalf of the petitioners in I.A.No.651 of 2004. However, there is nothing to show that she had also deposed as a witness, in respect of the other interlocutory application, in I.A.No.650 of 2004. Further, the petitioners have not been in a position to show that a witness, by name 'Subbathal' had let in evidence, in favour of the petitioners in I.A.No.650 of 2004.
13. It is also noted that the trial Court had also recorded that there is no documentary evidence marked in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, dated 2.4.2008, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, is erroneous and illegal, as alleged by the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the trial Court had passed the order, dated 2.4.2008, in I.A.No.650 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to prove that they are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property.
5. It had also been stated that an affidavit had been filed by one Karuppathal, on 22.6.2006. in the Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.651 of 2004, and I.A.Nos.650 and 649 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004. However, without considering the said affidavit, wherein she had made certain statements in favour of the petitioners, the trial Court had dismissed the claims made by the petitioners, as though no evidence was available on record, in the said Interlocutory Applications. However, the learned counsel had admitted that the said affidavit of Karuppathal, dated 22.6.2006, had not been produced before this Court at the time of the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.(PD) No.568 of 2009.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had also submitted that the oral evidence adduced by Karuppathal, in favour of the petitioners, is admissible, as per section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the Review Application, filed by the petitioners, is vexatious in nature. He had pointed out that this Court had passed the order, dated 9.3.2010, in C.R.P.(PD) No.568 of 2009, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. This Court had taken note of the fact that, in the affidavit said to have been filed by Karuppathal, she had stated that she was appearing as a witness on behalf of the petitioners only in I.A.No.651 of 2004. Therefore, the observations of the trial Court, as well as of this Court, that there was no evidence shown to be available, in respect of I.A.No.650 of 2004, was right.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also stated that the petitioners had filed the present Review Application only to drag on the execution proceedings, which had been initiated pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit, in O.S.No.132 of 2004.
9. He had further submitted that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction, as there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the records, in the order passed by this Court, on 9.3.2010, in C.R.P.(PD) No.568 of 2009.
10. He had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in HARIDAS DAS Vs. USHA RANI BANIK (2006) 4 SCC 78), in support of his contentions.
11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to review its order, dated 9.3.2010, made in CRP (PD) No.568 of 2009.
12. All the issues raised by the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.(PD) No.568 of 2009, had been considered by this Court and appropriate orders had been passed. While so, it is not open to the petitioners to reopen the matter by filing the Review Application before this Court.
13. It is a well settled position in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited and that it could be invoked only in certain specific circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court, in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). As such, the Review Application filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2010 is closed. 21.3.2012