REV.APLO/18/2026 of Mrs.Aruna Shyamsunder and 2 others Vs Mrs.V.Sucharita, and 3 others on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This application has been filed seeking to review the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in A.No.3378 of 2026 in C.S.No.203 of 2022, whereby this Court had permitted P.W.2 to tender evidence through Video Conferencing.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the evidence of the plaintiffs, including the evidence of P.W.2, had already been closed pursuant to the orders dated 22.06.2026 and 30.07.2026, and that, thereafter, the applicants had been directed to commence their evidence. It was contended that, without reopening the evidence of the plaintiffs or modifying

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )

REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026

the aforesaid orders, this Court, by order dated 18.08.2026, had permitted P.W.2 to tender evidence through Video Conferencing.

3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the said order was passed without taking note of the earlier orders by which the plaintiffs’ evidence had been closed and without there being any specific order reopening the same. It was therefore contended that the permission granted to P.W.2 to tender evidence through Video Conferencing amounted, in effect, to permitting the plaintiffs to continue their evidence, notwithstanding the earlier orders of this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the said aspect constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 18.08.2026.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the relevant facts relating to the closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence and the repeated extensions granted earlier for completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence had not been brought to the notice of this Court in their proper perspective at the time of passing the order dated 18.08.2026. It was therefore submitted that, if the said facts had been brought to the notice of the Court, the order permitting P.W.2 to tender evidence through Video Conference would not have been passed in the manner in which it was passed.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )

REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicants had already been directed to commence their evidence and that permitting P.W.2 to tender evidence thereafter would cause prejudice to the applicants and would also have the effect of reopening the evidence of the plaintiffs without any specific order to that effect. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in A.No.3378 of 2026 be reviewed and the application seeking permission for P.W.2 to tender evidence through Video Conferencing be reconsidered.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the records placed before this Court.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and perused the earlier orders as well as the order sought to be reviewed. The power of review is limited in scope and can be exercised only when the requirements for review are satisfied. A review cannot be sought merely for rehearing or reconsideration of the matter on the same grounds which have already been considered or which could have been urged at the earlier stage.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )

REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026

8. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the earlier orders relating to the closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence and the commencement of the applicants’ evidence, the applicants have not demonstrated that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 18.08.2026. The grounds raised in the present application essentially seek reconsideration of the order already passed and do not disclose any apparent error warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.

9. The contention that certain facts were not brought to the notice of the Court, by itself, cannot be a ground for review unless such omission has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record or otherwise satisfies the parameters for exercising the review jurisdiction. On a consideration of the records, this Court is of the view that no such error has been established in the present case.

10. This Court is therefore not persuaded to review or recall the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in A.No.3378 of 2026. The applicants have not made out sufficient grounds for interference with the said order in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )

REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Review Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No av

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )

REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. av REV.APLO No. 18 of 2026 in A.No.3378 of 2026 in C.S.No.203 of 2022 28-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 06:54:34 pm )