Skip to content


Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Chimanlal Kalidas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1944)46BOMLR837; (1945)47BOMLR574
AppellantManeklal Mansukhbhai
RespondentChimanlal Kalidas
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
practice-re-hearing of appeal decided by privy council ex parte, if will be granted when applicant cannot satisfy beard as to matters not previously considered and likely to affect decision which he could urge at re-hearing.;an application for a re-hearing of a case decided ex parte without any fault on the applicant's part will: be granted only if he satisfied the judicial committee that, if a further hearing were: granted, he would be able to place before them some considerations which might have affected the previous decision. - atkin, j.1. their lordships are unable to grant this application. they have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte; and, wherever he could satisfy their lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again ; but the present case, is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. the high court, from which there was the ' appeal, after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction and the board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the high court and. had come to an opposite.....
Judgment:

Atkin, J.

1. Their Lordships are unable to grant this application. They have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte; and, wherever he could Satisfy their Lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again ; but the present case, is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. The High Court, from which there was the ' appeal, after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction and the Board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the High Court and. had come to an opposite conclusion. It is not suggested that there is anything which could be said to the Board, if they did grant a further hearing, which had not been considered by the Board in giving their judgment on the previous hearing.

2. In those circumstances it seems to their Lordships that it would be improper to cause the parties to have another hearing which could only have exactly the same result.

3. Therefore their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this application should be refused with costs.


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