Skip to content


Arayalpurath Randupurayil Kunhimayan and anr. Vs. Kautilat Cheekiladen Ahmad Kuth Haji and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.204
AppellantArayalpurath Randupurayil Kunhimayan and anr.
RespondentKautilat Cheekiladen Ahmad Kuth Haji and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 623 - review--rules of the high court, appellate side--decision cm review application by a single judge when the judgment sought to be reviewed was pronounced by a bench--prayer in review not asked for by respondent by way of cross-appeal. - .....to the adoption of this procedure we proceed to review it.3. mr. rosario argues that we cannot in review make an order such as boddam, j., has made because the plaintiff not having appealed himself or filed it memorandum of objections to his opponent's appeal, against the decree of the court of first instance he could not have obtained from the court which heard the appeal the relief which he now seeks by way of review. we do not accede to this contention. the review asked for is a review of the judgment of the court of appeal confirming the decree of the court of first instance and so far as we can see, nothing that was done or left undone while the matter was in the court of appeal, can prevent a party from applying for a review of judgment of the appellate court provided his.....
Judgment:

1. We think Mr. Rosario has shown sufficient cause why we should excuse the delay in presenting the appeal and we proceed to hear it. Mr. Rosario argues first that Boddain, J., had no power, sitting alone to review the judgment of the Court though he had power to allow the application for review i.e., to direct that the judgment be reviewed. The learned Advocate General agrees with him and so do we, and we must, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside Boddam, J 's order as one made by a Court not competent under the rules to make it.

2. The judgment will, therefore, have to be reviewed by a competent Court, that is by a Bench of two Judges and as we form such a Court, and no objection is taken to the adoption of this procedure we proceed to review it.

3. Mr. Rosario argues that we cannot in review make an order such as Boddam, J., has made because the plaintiff not having appealed himself or filed it memorandum of objections to his opponent's appeal, against the decree of the Court of first instance he could not have obtained from the Court which heard the appeal the relief which he now seeks by way of review. We do not accede to this contention. The review asked for is a review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal confirming the decree of the Court of first instance and so far as we can see, nothing that was done or left undone while the matter was in the Court of Appeal, can prevent a party from applying for a review of judgment of the Appellate Court provided his application is made on some of the grounds mentioned in the Code.

4. On the merits we think that the order we ought to make is an order in the same terms as those of Boddam, J., and we make it accordingly.

5. The parties will pay their Own costs in the Letters Patent Appeal.


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