Skip to content


Syed Muhammad Rowther Vs. Sundara Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Mad608
AppellantSyed Muhammad Rowther
RespondentSundara Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- .....alleged to have contained an error on the face of its record. this error was never perceived by the petitioner, until the actual hearing which in itself goes to belie that it was 'on the face of the record.' it lay in the court departing from the pleadings in a petition under section 48, and allowing the petitioner to prove a fraud that he had not pleaded. this in my opinion would be an error, but not an error on the face of the record. it was a matter which might have been taken up on appeal; but no appeal was preferred. review is not exactly a substitute for appeal. i therefore decline to interfere. the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The short point in this petition is whether the lower Court acted irregularly in refusing to review its predecessor's order which is alleged to have contained an error on the face of its record. This error was never perceived by the petitioner, until the actual hearing which in itself goes to belie that it was 'on the face of the record.' It lay in the Court departing from the pleadings in a petition under Section 48, and allowing the petitioner to prove a fraud that he had not pleaded. This in my opinion would be an error, but not an error on the face of the record. It was a matter which might have been taken up on appeal; but no appeal was preferred. Review is not exactly a substitute for appeal. I therefore decline to interfere. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.


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