Skip to content


Kolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors. Vs. Veena Tolasi Babu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad602; (1924)46MLJ463
AppellantKolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors.
RespondentVeena Tolasi Babu and ors.
Cases Referred and Gopala Iyer v. Ramasami Sastrial
Excerpt:
- .....ground that there was ' other sufficient reason ' under order 47, r. i. an appeal against an order granting review may be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in order 47, rule 7. no such grounds exist in the present case and can be urged in this appeal. then the question arises as this is a final appeal from the decree itself, can the decision be challenged on grounds other than those contained in rule 7? if the grounds relate to the granting of the review, in my opinion, the grounds, must be those that are set out in rule 7. [see baroda churn ghose v. govinda proshad tewary ilr (1895) cal. 984 bubiram chowdhury v. bishea perkash naran singh ilr (1897) c 878 and gopala iyer v. ramasami sastrial ilr (1907) m 49 : 1907 17 mlj 603.] this will not of course preclude the appellant.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the application for review either on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record or on the ground that there was ' other sufficient reason ' under Order 47, R. I. An appeal against an order granting review may be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in Order 47, Rule 7. No such grounds exist in the present case and can be urged in this appeal. Then the question arises as this is a final appeal from the decree itself, can the decision be challenged on grounds other than those contained in Rule 7? If the grounds relate to the granting of the review, in my opinion, the grounds, must be those that are set out in Rule 7. [See Baroda Churn Ghose v. Govinda Proshad Tewary ILR (1895) Cal. 984 Bubiram Chowdhury v. Bishea Perkash Naran Singh ILR (1897) C 878 and Gopala Iyer v. Ramasami Sastrial ILR (1907) M 49 : 1907 17 MLJ 603.] This will not of course preclude the appellant from arguing the second appeal on its merits. It has not been shown that the decision on the merits is wrong. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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