Skip to content


Velovolu Potharaju Vs. Matta Adiseshu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad578; 87Ind.Cas.391
AppellantVelovolu Potharaju
RespondentMatta Adiseshu and anr.
Cases ReferredTirbeni Kunwar v. Mohan Lal A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....can be no doubt from 1st respondent's petition that the reason put forward by him for seeking review was the discovery of new and important matter, which was not within his knowledge, when the decree was passed. the lower appellate court granted the review, because of its view that this discovered matter was new and important. this it had no power to do, without calling for strict proof of the allegation that the new matter was not within the knowledge of 1st respondent when the decree was passed and the judge has not called for any proof at all.2. the 1st respondent argued that the judge for himself decided that the most important matter was 'other sufficient reason,' within the meaning of rule (1) of order 47 of the code of civil procedure. the judge does not say so; nor was there.....
Judgment:

1. There can be no doubt from 1st respondent's petition that the reason put forward by him for seeking review was the discovery of new and important matter, which was not within his knowledge, when the decree was passed. The Lower Appellate Court granted the review, because of its view that this discovered matter was new and important. This it had no power to do, without calling for strict proof of the allegation that the new matter was not within the knowledge of 1st respondent when the decree was passed and the Judge has not called for any proof at all.

2. The 1st respondent argued that the Judge for himself decided that the most important matter was 'other sufficient reason,' within the meaning of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Judge does not say so; nor was there before him anything else, but the discovery of this new and important matter. To hold that in such a case the Judge can evade the requirements of Rule 4(2)(b) and absolve the applicant from his statutory duty of producing strict proof of his allegations, by adopting as his own reason, without any enquiry, the applicant's reason for seeking review, is in our view tantamount to abolishing Rule (4)(2)(b) altogether and we are not prepared to adopt such a view. To allow that any Court may at any time after the decision of a suit, re-open it by merely stating that an important document has been ignored or since discovered, is to render impossible any finality in litigation. If the ruling in Tirbeni Kunwar v. Mohan Lal A.I.R. 1922 All. 366 implies such a view, we are not prepared to follow it.

3. We must hold that the lower Court's order is a breach of Order 47, Rule 4(2)(b) and was therefore without jurisdiction. It is therefore set aside. In the absence of any record, to show whether or not any evidence ready by respondent was shut out, we think it proper to direct that the application be re-heard and the provisions of Rule 4(2)(b) strictly observed.

4. Appellant will get his costs throughout upto date in both Courts.


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