Skip to content


Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Jagar Nath Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All759; 85Ind.Cas.180
AppellantRam Naresh Singh
RespondentJagar Nath Singh
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rule 1 - new evidence, requirements of--other sufficient cause--petition for review, whether can be admitted. - .....the court below had no jurisdiction to allow a review. the suit was one on a note-of-hand. the learned munsif originally dismissed the suit on the ground that he was unfavorably impressed with the plaintiffs evidence and that the plaintiff's witness was a chance witness. the defendant in his evidence had asserted that he was illiterate but this fact is not referred to in the judgment. a month afterwards the plaintiffs produced a copy of a vakalatnama signed by the defendant and asked for a review on this ground. the learned munsif admitted it and because he considered that the defendant had lied m saying that he was illiterate he proceeded to decree the claim and to accept the plaintiff's evidence which he had previously disbelieved. the vakalatnama and another paper relied on were.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order granting a review in a Small Cause Court, case. But for the suit having been tried by a Small Cause Court an appeal would have lain under Order XLVII, Rule 7. The ground of revision is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow a review. The suit was one on a note-of-hand. The learned Munsif originally dismissed the suit on the ground that he was unfavorably impressed with the plaintiffs evidence and that the plaintiff's witness was a chance witness. The defendant in his evidence had asserted that he was illiterate but this fact is not referred to in the judgment. A month afterwards the plaintiffs produced a copy of a vakalatnama signed by the defendant and asked for a review on this ground. The learned Munsif admitted it and because he considered that the defendant had lied m saying that he was illiterate he proceeded to decree the claim and to accept the plaintiff's evidence which he had previously disbelieved. The vakalatnama and another paper relied on were both filed in a suit to which the plaintiff was a party and there is absolutely nothing to show that this evidence could not, with the exercise of due diligence, have been within his knowledge or have been produced by him at the original trial. He did not at the trial even ask for an adjournment to test the defendant's statement. If the new evidence alleged did not comply with the requirements of Order XLVII, Rule 1 the review certainly could not be admitted on the ground of other sufficient reason. In my opinion, the learned Munsif was not, legally justified in granting the review.

2. I accordingly set aside his decree and restore the original decree dismissing the suit. Under the circumstances I make no order as the costs.


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