Skip to content


Rajani Kanta Das Vs. Kali Prasanna Mukherjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal71(1),(1914)ILR41Cal809
AppellantRajani Kanta Das
RespondentKali Prasanna Mukherjee
Cases ReferredBhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry
Excerpt:
review - dismissal of application for admission of second appeal--application for review hated on alleged discovery of new an (sic) evidence--high court, jurisdiction of--civil procedure (sic) of 1908) order xli, rule 11 and order xlvii, rule 1. - .....the disposal of a second appeal. the preliminary objection is supported by the decisions in bhyrub nath toee v. kally chunder chowdhry (1871).16 w.r. 112 raru kutti v. mamad (1895) i.l.r. 18 mad. 480 and in the matter of the petition of nand kishore (1909) i.l.r. 32 all. 71. the first of these rulings is binding upon me and i must, therefore, hold that this application cannot be granted. reference is made by the other side, to the case of heera lull ghose v. ram taruck dey (1875) 23 w.r. 323. but the observations by the learned judges in that case do not amount to a decision which can be weighed against the decision in bhyrub nath toee v. kally chunder chowdhry (1871).16 w.r. 112 inasmuch as the learned judges refused the application for review, and their observations, therefore, can.....
Judgment:

Coxe, J.

1. This was a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why an appeal should not be reheard on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence. A preliminary objection is taken that an application of this kind cannot be made after the disposal of a second appeal. The preliminary objection is supported by the decisions in Bhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry (1871).16 W.R. 112 Raru Kutti v. Mamad (1895) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 480 and In the matter of the Petition of Nand Kishore (1909) I.L.R. 32 All. 71. The first of these rulings is binding upon me and I must, therefore, hold that this application cannot be granted. Reference is made by the other side, to the case of Heera Lull Ghose v. Ram Taruck Dey (1875) 23 W.R. 323. But the observations by the learned Judges in that case do not amount to a decision which can be weighed against the decision in Bhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry (1871).16 W.R. 112 inasmuch as the learned Judges refused the application for review, and their observations, therefore, can only be regarded as obiter dicta.

2. The Rule is discharged with costs.

3. Let the documents filed by the Petitioner be returned.


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