Skip to content


Choudhry Balbhadar Singh Vs. Chunni Lal Sahu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.707
AppellantChoudhry Balbhadar Singh
RespondentChunni Lal Sahu and anr.
Excerpt:
review - order refusing to grant review--revision--amendment of decree. - - if the order complained of is an order refusing to grant a review of the order absolute made on 18th august 1906, the remedy is not an application for revision. as the order of 18th august 1906 is not at variance with any judgment, the application to the court below was rightly dismissed and this application for revision must fail......obtained a decree against the applicant under section 88 of the transfer of property act. the decree was made absolute by an order dated 18th august 1906. the applicant, who is the judgment-debtor to the decree, applied to the court below for amendment of the order absolute on the ground that it was not in conformity with the judgment. the court below having dismissed the application, the present application for revision has been filed. what the judgment-debtor really wanted was not to bring the order absolute, made on 18th august 1906, into conformity with any judgment, but to have' it amended on the ground that it did not comply with the terms of the compromise which was the basis of the decree under section 88. there being no judgment, with which the order of 18th may 1906 was at.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. The opposite party obtained a decree against the applicant under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree was made absolute by an order dated 18th August 1906. The applicant, who is the judgment-debtor to the decree, applied to the Court below for amendment of the order absolute on the ground that it was not in conformity with the judgment. The Court below having dismissed the application, the present application for revision has been filed. What the judgment-debtor really wanted was not to bring the order absolute, made on 18th August 1906, into conformity with any judgment, but to have' it amended on the ground that it did not comply with the terms of the compromise which was the basis of the decree under Section 88. There being no judgment, with which the order of 18th May 1906 was at variance, the Court below was right in dismissing the application. The Court below apparently treated the application as one for review of judgment. If the order complained of is an order refusing to grant a review of the order absolute made on 18th August 1906, the remedy is not an application for revision. If the order of the 18th August 1906, is erroneous, the applicant's remedy was also an appeal. He can only apply for revision if the Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter of the amendment of the order absolute, so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment. As the order of 18th August 1906 is not at variance with any judgment, the application to the Court below was rightly dismissed and this application for revision must fail. I accordingly dismiss the application with costs.


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