Skip to content


Girdhari Lal Vs. Zorawar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All57
AppellantGirdhari Lal
RespondentZorawar Singh
Excerpt:
.....board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - asthana for the appellant takes the only point which ho can in defence of the right of appeal, and on the face of it, it looks like a good point......form of preferring appeals shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for review.2. but on turning to rule 1 of order 41, it is quite clear that by the provisions container in that rule, a specific form is required when a party decides to appeal. the marginal note to order 47, rule 3 describes the rule as one really relating to the form of application, and the rule itself says that the provisions of the appellate rules shall apply to forms in applications for review.3. we do not think that extends the right of the party who goes for a review. it merely defines the method by which the form shall be adopted and ascertained. it does not relate to the right of appeal. this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Walsh, Ag. C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a refusal to restore an application for review, the application to the lower Court to restore the application for review having been hoard out on the merits. The disappointed party wants this Court to rehear in appeal the application, which has been heard in the Court below and refused, and to restore the application in review. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent. Mr. N.P. Asthana for the appellant takes the only point which ho can in defence of the right of appeal, and on the face of it, it looks like a good point. lie approaches it in this way. Order 43, Rule 1 Sub-section (t) gives a right of appeal from an order made under Rule 19 of Order 41, which is the ordinary appellate order. He then refers to Rule 3 of Order 47, which is the review order and says that he gets into the appellate order by reference to it, namely by the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 47, which provides that the provision as to the form of preferring appeals shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for review.

2. But on turning to Rule 1 of Order 41, it is quite clear that by the provisions container in that rule, a specific form is required when a party decides to appeal. The marginal note to Order 47, Rule 3 describes the rule as one really relating to the form of application, and the rule itself says that the provisions of the appellate rules shall apply to forms in applications for review.

3. We do not think that extends the right of the party who goes for a review. It merely defines the method by which the form shall be adopted and ascertained. It does not relate to the right of appeal. This appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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