CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Section XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC., to review the judgment and decree passed by this Court in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 dated 21.03.2025 by allowing the present review application.)

1. This Review Application is filed to review the judgment and decree passed by this Court in S.A(MD) No.730 of 2009 dated 21.03.2025.

2. Brief facts of the case:

The petitioner and the respondent are spouses. Their marriage took place on 10.12.1986 and thereafter they have been living separately from 07.01.1987, as the respondent alleged that the petitioner is a mentally ill person. Upon a petition in O.P.No.110 of 1987 filed by the respondent, the marriage between them was annulled by the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, by decree dated 16.11.1988. Though the first appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed on 05.11.1992, the order of annulment was restored by this Court in its order passed in A.A.A.O.No.35 of 1993 dated 26.02.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner, through her father, filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, directing the respondent to return the seer articles, including 20 sovereigns or 160 gm of gold jewels OR in alternative directing the respondent to pay the value of the articles as mentioned in the plaint. The suit was decreed and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. Challenging the order passed in the first appeal, the respondent preferred the Second Appeal in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 before this Court. This Court passed an order dated 21.03.2025 modifying the return of gold jewellery to 15 sovereigns (120 grams) or to pay its value on the date of the plaint, instead of 20 sovereigns or 160 grams. Hence, the petitioner, through her sister, filed this review petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was held on 10.12.1986, but within three weeks they have been living separately from 07.01.1987. The petitioner admits that the respondent filed O.P.No.110 of 1987 for annulment of marriage and the same was allowed and that even though the first appeal was preferred by the petitioner, the order of the trial Court was restored by this Court in the second appeal. Hence, the marital status came to an end. At the time of marriage, the respondent was given gold ornaments and silver, and seer articles, and the same were retained by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner, through her father, filed a suit in 2000 for return of jewels or, in the alternative, the value of articles. The suit was tried in O.S.No.149 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, and the suit was decreed on 14.06.2006. The respondent filed the first appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, and the same was dismissed. Then, the respondent has preferred the Second Appeal in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 before this Court. This Court passed an order on 21.03.2025 and modified the trial Court's order that the petitioner is entitled to receive 15 sovereigns or 120 grams, or, in the alternative, to receive its value on the date of the plaint. This Court observed in paragraph No.21 in its order that there is repetition of two items, i.e., the 4th item and 5th item repeated as 8th item and 9th item, and thereby reduced the award to 15 sovereigns from 20 sovereigns, and further observed that the petitioner was ready to reduce the jewellery. There is no repetition of the jewellery, and also the order for calculating the value on the date of the plaint is unwarranted and a mistake. Though the suit was filed in 2000, the order was passed in the second appeal in 2025. During this period, the value of the gold jewels has increased several times. The order passed by this Court in the second appeal, ‘value on the date of plaint’, is unjust. The order has to be reviewed, as 20 sovereigns were stated in the plaint and the respondent was directed to give 20 sovereigns or its present value to the petitioner. Hence, this petitioner has filed this petition to review the order, and the review application may be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner in the plaint itself averred that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was nullified and that thereafter the petitioner has filed the suit for return of articles mentioned in the schedules and, in the alternative, to pay the value of articles mentioned in the plaint. The petitioner stated that 160 grams of gold jewellery is in 'A' Schedule. The petitioner valued the suit articles at Rs.61,827.50 and paid court fee of Rs.4637.75. The petitioner prayed for return of articles or payment of value of articles mentioned in the suit. The trial Court decreed, directing the respondent to return the articles or to pay the value of the articles as per the plaint along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of the plaint. The respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. The petitioner has not preferred any cross-appeal. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred the second appeal before this Court in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 and in the grounds of the second appeal, the respondent valued the claim at Rs.61,827.50/- and paid Court fee of Rs.4637.75. This Court dismissed the second appeal, however, it observed that items 4 and 5 were repeated as 8th and 9th items, so it modified and reduced it to 15 sovereigns instead of 20 sovereigns and accordingly directed the respondent to return 15 sovereigns or its equivalent money value calculated on the date of the plaint. The petitioner has also filed an execution petition in E.P.No.66 of 2023 in O.S.No.149 of 2004, stating the value of the decree amount as the equivalent money value as on date of plaint i.e., 02.02.2000 with 6% interest totally Rs.1,49,437.07/- and an incidental fee of Rs.5,075/-, its net total Rs.1,54,512.07/-. The respondent is ready to pay the decree amount and has filed a memo to that effect in the execution petition. The value of money has not been amended by the petitioner even prior to the conclusion of trial or before reaching finality in the second appeal. Hence, the money value equivalent on the date of the plaint cannot be modified. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have held in several cases that the money value of the articles on the date of the plaint cannot be increased at a later point of time, and the learned counsel relied on the following rulings:

                     (1) 1972 TNLJ 614 in the case of Meer Mohamed Levai Sahib & Ors. /v/ The Madras State Wakf Board.

                     (2) 2010 (1) CTC 833 of Madras High Court in the case of Vasantha /v/ Ranganathan and Anr.

                     (3) Judgment of this Court in S.A(MD)No. 794 of 2005 in the case of Thangamariammal /v/ Padmavathi and Ors.

                     (4) (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 606 in the case of Banarsi and Ors. /v/ Ram Phal.

                     (5) Order of this Court passed in C.R.P. (PD)(MD)No.1555 of 2017 in the case of Sundaram and Ors. /v/ Jim Kumar and Ors.

Hence, the learned counsel submitted that, having not filed any appeal, the petitioner is not entitled to demand money value of the articles except the value as on the date of the plaint, which has been decreed and has reached finality. Therefore, the review application may be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the articles of two Vaalipoo chains and two rings are different, they are not one and the same, as observed by this Court in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 and that the petitioner sought the return of the articles as the main prayer and only in the alternative sought an equivalent amount. Even prior to the order passed in the second appeal, the petitioner filed E.P.No.66 of 2023 on 10.11.2023. Hence, the citations relied on by the respondent are not applicable to this case. The respondent may be directed to return the articles as mentioned in the plaint.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has already filed a memo to deposit the money for the articles as mentioned in the plaint, with interest, and the respondent is ready to pay the E.P. Amount. The petitioner is not entitled to seek the present value of the articles.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both parties and also perused the material records. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was nullified by the Court of law and it reached finality. From the material records, it is clear that the petitioner stated that at the time of marriage, gold jewels and seer articles were given to the respondent and the same were not returned and hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur for return of 20 sovereigns or 160 grams of gold jewels and other articles or in alternative sought money equivalent value on the date of the plaint. The trial Court decreed the suit on 14.06.2006, directing the respondent to return the articles and, in the alternative, directing the respondent to pay the value of the articles as per the total value mentioned in the plaint with interest at 6% p.a. Further, it is clear that the respondent preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, however, the appeal was dismissed on 28.02.2008. There is no cross appeal filed by the petitioner.

8. Thereafter, the respondent filed the second appeal in S.A(MD)No.730 of 2009 before this Court. After hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the second appeal, but modified the decree directing to return of 15 sovereign jewels or its value on the date of the plaint instead of 20 sovereigns. The Court observed and held in its judgment dated 21.03.2025 in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 as follows:

                     “20.Even if we consider for the argument sake that the plaintiff returned to the house of her parents with earrings and tali and chain and bangles, what happened to the remaining jewellery, there is no explanation even by their own argument. So, in all probabilities, some of the jewellery might have been retained by the appellant/plaintiff leaving the plaintiff to leave the house with tali, earrings, bangles.

                     21.We can also verify the above said finding, in the light of the list given in the plaint. 4th item is mentioned as Red Stone earring 1 pair. 8th item is mentioned as earring. 5th item is mentioned as Vaalai Poo Chain. The same is repeated as 9th item. There is overlapping in the items when we compare and deduct the above Vaalai Poo Chain, earring articles. So, the repetition of the Vaalai Poo Chain makes very difficult in assessing the correct jewellery taken by the plaintiff of her person and the jewellery retained by the defendant. This was put as clarification to the learned counsel for the respondent. But no acceptable explanation came. This was not properly appreciated at the time of trial. Even at the time of judgement by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. We have to necessarily deduct some of the items. Which item has to be deducted due to the absence of the clear evidence on record, I am unable to point out. But some deletion can be made, which must be reasonable. I am of the considered view that the total 15 sovereigns or its equivalent money value calculated on the date of the plaint may be ordered to be returned or paid in cash. In fact, at the time of argument, the respondent has submitted that during the course of mediation process, they wanted to reduce the items. But that was not accepted by the appellant. Now whatever it may be, I am of the considered view that 15 sovereigns of gold jewel or its equivalent to 120 grams or its value in money must be returned by the appellant. To that effect, the decree and judgment of the trial court is modified.”

9. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition to review the above order and submitted that this Court modified the decree of the trial Court by reducing it to 15 sovereigns from 20 sovereigns without any concrete evidence and also directed the payment of the 15 sovereigns' value calculated on the date of the plaint. The petitioner’s counsel specifically submitted that items 4 and 5 were not repeated in the 8th and 9th items, and that these items are different from each other. On perusal of the plaint, the petitioner has mentioned gold jewels in 'A' Schedule, which is extracted hereunder:

                     ‘A’ Schedule (Gold Ornaments)

No.	Gold Description	Gr.Mg.
1.	Bombay Bangles	14.950
2.	Ring	7.850
3.	Coral Ring	3.700
4.	Red Stone earring 1 pair	5.500
5.	Vaalaipoo Chain	36.800
6.	Diamond Raja Bangles 2 pairs	39.700
7.	Fancy Necklace	23.950
8.	Ear Ring	4.000
9.	Vaalaipoo Chain	24.200
	Total	160.650

10. On perusal of the records, the respondent has not disputed about the pleading of 20 sovereign gold jewels as mentioned in 'A' Schedule, and he has not let in any evidence to show less than 20 sovereigns. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has confirmed the gold jewels as 20 sovereigns and so, there is a concurrent finding regarding 20 sovereigns. A careful perusal of the order passed by this Court, particularly in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 as stated supra, this Court has also stated as evidence on record, which is as follows:

                     “There is overlapping in the items when we compare and deduct the above Vaalai Poo Chain, earring articles.. ….Which item has to be deducted due to the absence of the clear evidence on record, I am unable to point out. But some deletion can be made, which must be reasonable. I am of the considered view that the total 15 sovereigns or its equivalent money value calculated on the date of the plaint may be ordered to be returned or paid in cash.”

11. From the above facts, it is clear that items 4 and 8 are different, which are mentioned as 5.500 grams and 4.000 grams respectively and that items 5 and 9 are also different, which are mentioned as 36.800 grams and 24.200 grams respectively. There is no overlapping, as already held by this Court, as stated supra. Therefore, as rightly observed by this Court in the above order, there is no concrete evidence regarding each item. Hence, the observation of overlapping of items 4 & 8 and 5 & 9 is not correct in the absence of evidence, and there is an apparent error on the face of the record in holding 15 sovereigns instead of 20 sovereigns.

12. The petitioner has filed this petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section 114 of CPC, to review the order passed by this Court. It is a well-settled principle that the scope of review is for review of “error apparent” only and not to review the judgment/order, even if the parties are in a position to satisfy the Court that the order under review is an erroneous order. It is also a settled principle of law that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78 in the case of Haridas Das /v/ Usha Rani Banik & Ors., held in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as follows:

                     12. Order XLVII Rule 1 reads as follows:

                     "REVIEW :

                     1. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGMENT.

                     (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved –

                     (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which, no appeal has been preferred,

                     (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

                     (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.

                     (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review or judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

                     Explanation : The fact that the decision on question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

                     2 [Repealed by Act 66 of 1956]."

                     13.In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 of the CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the Court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit." The parameters are prescribed in Order XLVII of the CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the explanation in Rule 1 of the Order XLVII which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection.”

14. From the above decision, it is settled law that when there is a clear apparent error, the same can be reviewed by the same Court. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the return of 20 sovereigns as sought in the plaint, as upheld by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, is correct and hence, the observation of this Court reducing it to 15 sovereigns against the original 20 sovereigns is reviewed as 20 sovereigns and thereby the modification in that respect made in the decree is to be cancelled and the return of 20 sovereigns or its value as on the date of the plaint is restored.

15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the next point that the value calculated on the date of plaint made in the order of this court second appeal is unjust and hence, wants the Court to review the same to reflect the present value as the suit was filed in the 2000 and it was prolonged by the respondent by way of first appeal and second appeal and the order was passed in second appeal in the year 2025. This version is vehemently and strongly objected to by the respondent on the ground that there is no appeal or cross appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the money value of articles or at least made an effort to amend the plaint as to the value of gold jewels prevailing at the time of the order. The learned counsel strenuously argued that once the plaintiff specifically mentioned the value of the articles in the plaint itself, the same cannot be increased because of a subsequent increase and relied on the citations supra. A careful perusal of the rulings relied on by the respondent side shows that, in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal, the decree passed in the trial Court cannot be modified. In particular, the order passed by this Court in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1555 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

16. It is worthwhile to extract the order in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1555 of 2017 as an answer to the petitioner’s plea in this review petition. The same is as follows:

                     “3.The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the cause of action arose only on the date of plaint and the value of the gold jewels is not constant and increasing day-by-day and if this type amendment applications are entertained, there would be no end or quietus to the issues and accordingly, dismissed the application. In such view of the matter, I find acceptance to the reasons given by the Court below for dismissing the application and the impugned order of the Court below, therefore, does not call for any interference from this Court.”

As admitted by both sides, the decree passed in favour of the petitioner is confirmed by way of appeal and second appeal. The petitioner has not challenged the decree regarding money value on the date of the plaint. So, the value on the date of plaint cannot be modified by way of review, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent.

17. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner herself filed execution proceedings in E.P.No.66 of 2023 in O.S.No.149 of 2004, mentioning the value of articles as mentioned in the plaint with interest at 6% p.a along with incidental charges, and that the respondent has also filed a memo to deposit the decree amount as mentioned in the execution petition. The respondent is also ready to pay the value equivalent to 20 sovereigns. Therefore, the argument put forth by the petitioner side regarding the value of 20 sovereigns of gold to be calculated at its present value has no merit and the same is not acceptable, much less entertainable, in this review application.

18. In the result, this Review Application is partly allowed. The observation in respect of the 4th item repeating as the 8th item and 5th item repeating as the 9th item made in paragraph No.21 is ordered to be removed and the finding regarding “15 sovereigns gold jewel” made in paragraph No.21 is substituted with ''20 sovereigns gold jewel'' or its equivalent to 160 grams or its value in money on the date of plaint. Accordingly, this Review Application is ordered. In other respects, this petition is dismissed.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide