Skip to content


Kolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors. Vs. Veena Tulasibabu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in83Ind.Cas.548
AppellantKolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors.
RespondentVeena Tulasibabu and ors.
Cases Referred and Gopala Aiyar v. Ramasami Sastrial
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rules 1, 7 - appeal against decree passed on review--grounds relating to grant of review, restriction of. - .....on the face of the record or on the ground that there was 'other sufficient reason' under order xlvii, rule 1. an appeal against an order grantingreviewmay be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in order xlvii, 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. gobind proshad tewary 22 c.p 984 : 11 ind. dec. (n.s.) 653 munni ram chowdhry v. bishen perkash narain singh 24 c.p 878 : 12 ind. dec. (n.s.) 1254 and gopala aiyar v. ramasami sastrial.....
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 XLVII, Rule 1. An appeal against an order grantingreviewmay be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in Order XLVII, 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. Gobind Proshad Tewary 22 C.P 984 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 653 Munni Ram Chowdhry v. Bishen Perkash Narain Singh 24 C.P 878 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1254 and Gopala Aiyar v. Ramasami Sastrial 31 M.P 49 : 17 M.L.J. 603 : 2 M.L.T. 519 This will not preclude the appellants 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 //