Skip to content


Bhagwati Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReview Appln. No. 44 (W) of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977All163
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 47, Rule 1
AppellantBhagwati Singh
RespondentDeputy Director of Consolidation and anr.
Advocates:M.L. Trivedi, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - ground for revision - order 47 rule 1 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - case decided on merits - revision filed on grounds that arguments should have been done in different manner - unacceptable ground for revision. - - francis anthony, air1962mad304 that review cannot be granted on the mere ground that the particular counsel who appeared for a party failed to raise a particular point, in spite of instructions......by any error of law. the present application has been moved by another counsel and the wants to argue the writ petition afresh and raise grounds of attack which were not taken by the learned counsel who had argued the writ petition. the contention is that the counsel had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing these points.2. it is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. it is not for the litigant tojudge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. it is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. once the case has been fully argued on merits and decided on merits, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. it was held in the case of s. anthony.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Hari Swarup, J.

1. This is an application for the review of my judgment. The writ petition was argued by a counsel and was decided on merits on the points raised by him at the time of hearing. It was held that the finding about adverse possession recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was a finding of fact which was not shown to be vitiated by any error of law. The present application has been moved by another counsel and the wants to argue the writ petition afresh and raise grounds of attack which were not taken by the learned counsel who had argued the writ petition. The contention is that the counsel had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing these points.

2. It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant tojudge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been fully argued on merits and decided on merits, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. It was held in the case of S. Anthony v. Francis Anthony, : AIR1962Mad304 that review cannot be granted on the mere ground that the particular counsel who appeared for a party failed to raise a particular point, in spite of instructions. In the present case, there is not even an allegation that the counsel was instructed to argue something and he did not argue it.

3. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur (AIR 1950 FC 131) in support of his contention that a review lies where the counsel commits a mistake. But that was a case in which a mistake had crept in the judgment of the High Court owing to an oversight. The present case is not such a case. The writ petition was argued by a fully qualified counsel and was decided after full consideration of his arguments. It is not open to an Advocate, subsequently engaged, to judge the wisdom of the Advocate who had argued the case.

4. The application is dismissed.


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