Skip to content


Lakshman Maruti Jadhav Vs. Maruti Lakshman Teli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Application No. 206 of 1922, Civil Extraordinary Application No. 245 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom344; (1924)26BOMLR284
AppellantLakshman Maruti Jadhav
RespondentMaruti Lakshman Teli
Excerpt:
.....procedure code. [act v of 1908), section 115--high court recisional jurisdiction--order refusing review.;section 115 of the civil procedure code 1908 does not apply to an order of a lower court refusing to grant a review of its decision. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in..........as their heirship to ganpati was disputed and there was an expression on it, it was their duty to produce evidence of parvati's remarriage in the lower court. they produced no evidence. the lower court found in their favour without sufficient evidence and when the finding was set aside in revision they cannot be allowed to produce the evidence now. supposing a finding of fact by a lower court is reversed in appeal the party affected cannot be allowed to produce further evidence which he might have produced in the lower court. there was nothing to prevent the plaintiffs' producing parvati as a witness in the lower court, as she has been produced here, and if she refused to come, persons who were aware of her remarriage should have been called. but the plaintiffs made no effort to do so......
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. This rule must be discharged with costs. Section 115 of the Code does not apply to an order of a Court refusing to grant a review of its decision. The application for review was based on the allegation that the present applicants could bring evidence of Parvati's remarriage. There is no reason, as the Judge finds, why Parvati was not called when the case was decided. The Judge said:--

I am of opinion that as Parvati's existance was known to plaintiffs, as their heirship to Ganpati was disputed and there was an expression on it, it was their duty to produce evidence of Parvati's remarriage in the lower Court. They produced no evidence. The lower Court found in their favour without sufficient evidence and when the finding was set aside in revision they cannot be allowed to produce the evidence now. Supposing a finding of fact by a lower Court is reversed in appeal the party affected cannot be allowed to produce further evidence which he might have produced in the lower Court. There was nothing to prevent the plaintiffs' producing Parvati as a witness in the lower Court, as she has been produced here, and if she refused to come, persons who were aware of her remarriage should have been called. But the plaintiffs made no effort to do so. If the lower Court had found against them on the question of heir-ship on the ground that Parvati's remarriage was not proved they would not have been allowed to produce further evidence on this point in revision.

2. That is a perfectly correct statement of the law. The Judge having refused to grant a review on the ground that the evidence ought to have been produced in the lower Court, was justified in his decision.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //