Skip to content


Oudh Bihari Pande and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Sahi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.646
AppellantOudh Bihari Pande and anr.
RespondentMahadeo Sahi and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rule 1 - review--inconsistent judgment in the same case--error apparent on the face of the record. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - the minors were not separately represented and the court in error dismissed the application for execution as a whole, which had the effect of dismissing the application in so far as it was an application on behalf of the minors as well as mahadeo. this is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. in all other respects, the decree will stand good......judgment and now set aside so much of the judgment of the 31st of may 1909 as directs that the application for execution should be dismissed, and in lieu thereof direct that the application be dismissed in so far as it is an application on behalf of mahadeo himself and also so much of it as awards costs against the minors. in all other respects, the decree will stand good. we make no order as to the costs of this hearing.
Judgment:

1. The facts connected with this application for a review of judgment were shortly as follows. An application was made by one Mahadeo on behalf of himself and certain minors for execution of a certain decree which awarded separate amounts to the different decree-holders. This Court by a judgment, dated the 1st of May 1907, decided that the decree was time-barred against Mahadeo unless he could establish certain alleged payments but that the decree was not barred against the minors. The case was accordingly remanded. The lower Courts held that the payments had been established and that the execution was not barred against Mahadeo. The matter came up before this Court and judgment was delivered on the 31st of May 1909. In that judgment the fact was overlooked that Mahadeo had applied for execution not only for himself but also for the minors. The minors were not separately represented and the Court in error dismissed the application for execution as a whole, which had the effect of dismissing the application in so far as it was an application on behalf of the minors as well as Mahadeo. This is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. The previous judgment of this Court had decided that-the application was not barred so far as the minors were concerned. We, therefore, allow the application for review of judgment and now set aside so much of the judgment of the 31st of May 1909 as directs that the application for execution should be dismissed, and in lieu thereof direct that the application be dismissed in so far as it is an application on behalf of Mahadeo himself and also so much of it as awards costs against the minors. In all other respects, the decree will stand good. We make no order as to the costs of this hearing.


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