Skip to content


Gudri Singh and ors. Vs. Parsotam Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All395
AppellantGudri Singh and ors.
RespondentParsotam Das and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....and could not by due diligence have been discovered by him earlier. the ground on which the learned judge has allowed the appeal is that the plaintiff might by the exercise of due diligence have discovered other evidence, namely a khatauni for 1290 e1. the respondents appear to have urged before the judge that the wasil baqi was mainly wanted as furnishing a clue to this khatauni. the plaintiff himself has never admitted this and does not admit it now. it is the wasil baqi and not the khatauni which he claimed and claims to be entitled to put in. the only other ground given by the judge for allowing the appeal was that the evidence would not, in his opinion, have altered the decision of the case. this is a point which will have to be determined when the evidence is considered in.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an order allowing an appeal from a review of judgment. The review of judgment was granted by the Munsif on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence which could not by the exercise of due diligence have previously been discovered. It is now settled law that an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment is strictly limited to the ground set out in Order 47, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. This was decided in Khurshed Alam Khan v. Rahmat Ullah Khan (1918) 40 All. 68, and there are other cases of other High Courts to the same effect. The only ground alleged in the present case was that the application was in contravention of Rule 4 in that it was nod proved that the evidence could not have been produced at the original trial. Now it is an admitted fact that the evidence in question was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and could not by due diligence have been discovered by him earlier. The ground on which the learned Judge has allowed the appeal is that the plaintiff might by the exercise of due diligence have discovered other evidence, namely a khatauni for 1290 E1. The respondents appear to have urged before the Judge that the wasil baqi was mainly wanted as furnishing a clue to this khatauni. The plaintiff himself has never admitted this and does not admit it now. It is the wasil baqi and not the khatauni which he claimed and claims to be entitled to put in. The only other ground given by the Judge for allowing the appeal was that the evidence would not, in his opinion, have altered the decision of the case. This is a point which will have to be determined when the evidence is considered in conjunction with the other evidence in the case. In my opinion, the learned Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by allowing the appeal on grounds not covered by Order 47, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, On this ground I allow the present application, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore the order of the Munsif granting the review. The applicant will get his costs in this Court from the respondents. Other costs will abide the result.


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