Skip to content


Sheo Balak Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All704
AppellantSheo Balak Singh
RespondentMahabir Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
- - in our opinion, the view taken by the court below is perfectly correct.smith, j.1. this is a revision from an order refusing to entertain an application for review of judgment. the application was based on the ground that the lower appellate court had taken a wrong view of the facts. a second appeal had been prepared against the order of the lower appellate court and the appeal was dismissed under order 41, rule 11 before the application for review had been disposed of. the subordinate judge of fatehpur, who in the end dealt with it has held that inasmuch as the order of the lower appellate court had been affirmed on appeal by the high court he could not entertain the application for review. in our opinion, the view taken by the court below is perfectly correct. once a decree was affirmed by the high court it merged into the decree of the high court, and it.....
Judgment:

Smith, J.

1. This is a revision from an order refusing to entertain an application for review of judgment. The application was based on the ground that the lower Appellate Court had taken a wrong view of the facts. A second appeal had been prepared against the order of the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11 before the application for review had been disposed of. The Subordinate Judge of Fatehpur, who in the end dealt with it has held that inasmuch as the order of the lower appellate Court had been affirmed on appeal by the High Court he could not entertain the application for review. In our opinion, the view taken by the Court below is perfectly correct. Once a decree was affirmed by the High Court it merged into the decree of the High Court, and it was no longer open to the lower appellate Court to vary that decree. We may refer to the cases of Ram Prasad Upadhya v. Nageshar Pande [1920] 54 I.C. 764 and Shivappa v. Ram Chandra A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 130. It is also clear that there were no sufficient grounds for granting the review. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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