Skip to content


Hari Charan Saha Vs. Baran Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal283(1),(1914)ILR41Cal746
AppellantHari Charan Saha
RespondentBaran Khan
Cases Referred(Unrep.) and Surendra Nath Taludar v. Sita Nath Dass Gupta
Excerpt:
review - appeal against order granting review of judgment--civil procedure code (act v of 1908) order xliii, rule 1, clause (w) and order xlvii, rule 7. - .....rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable, but that an order granting such an application may be objected to on certain grounds. none of those grounds can be asserted in this case, and it is quite clear that, in so far as rule 7 of order xlvii goes, no appeal lies.4. but it is contended that an appeal lies under order xliii, rule 1, clause (w), which provides in general terms for an appeal against 'an order under rule 4 of order xlvii granting an application for review.'5. it has, on at least three occasions, been held by this court that order xliii, rule 1, clause (w), must be read with, and subject to, rule 7 of order xlvii. we refer to the unreported decisions in jugernath pershad singh v. earn autar singh (1911) mis. a. no. 341 of 1909 (unrep.) tripura charan kal.....
Judgment:

Carnduff and Richardson, JJ.

1. This is an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment.

2. The first question that arises is whether it is competent or not.

3. Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that an order rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable, but that an order granting such an application may be objected to on certain grounds. None of those grounds can be asserted in this case, and it is quite clear that, in so far as Rule 7 of Order XLVII goes, no appeal lies.

4. But it is contended that an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), which provides in general terms for an appeal against 'an order under Rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.'

5. It has, on at least three occasions, been held by this Court that Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), must be read with, and subject to, Rule 7 of Order XLVII. We refer to the unreported decisions in Jugernath Pershad Singh v. Earn Autar Singh (1911) Mis. A. No. 341 of 1909 (Unrep.) Tripura Charan Kal v. Sorashi Bala (1913) C. Rule No. 123 of 1913 (Unrep.) and Surendra Nath Taludar v. Sita Nath Dass Gupta (1913) Mis. A. No. 188 of 1912 (Unrep.). Following those three decisions, we must hold that this appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed with costs.


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