Skip to content


Fazel Biswas and ors. Vs. Jamadar Sheik and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR13Cal231
AppellantFazel Biswas and ors.
RespondentJamadar Sheik and ors.
Cases ReferredKaroo Singh v. Deo Narain Sing. I.L.R.
Excerpt:
review - civil procedure code, 1882, section 624--application for review heard by successor to judge who passed the decree. - .....into review, and in rehearing the appeal '. this clearly means that the subordinate judge has acted in contravention of section 624 of the code.2. now it appears that the application for review of judgment was made, or in other words preferred, to the same subordinate judge who made the decree. that subordinate judge directed that the application should be entered on the register, and that the requisite fees for service of notice should be deposited within three days. the present case therefore seems to be precisely on all fours with that of karoo singh v. deo narain sing. i.l.r. 10 cal. 80 in which it was held that if the application for review is presented to the judge who made the decree, and if he thereupon issues notice to the other side, the application has been 'made' to him.....
Judgment:

Beverley and Porter, JJ.

1. The only point raised in this appeal is 'that the Subordinate Judge has acted without jurisdiction and in contravention of the law in admitting the judgment of his predecessor into review, and in rehearing the appeal '. This clearly means that the Subordinate Judge has acted in contravention of Section 624 of the Code.

2. Now it appears that the application for review of judgment was made, or in other words preferred, to the same Subordinate Judge who made the decree. That Subordinate Judge directed that the application should be entered on the register, and that the requisite fees for service of notice should be deposited within three days. The present case therefore seems to be precisely on all fours with that of Karoo Singh v. Deo Narain Sing. I.L.R. 10 Cal. 80 in which it was held that if the application for review is presented to the Judge who made the decree, and if he thereupon issues notice to the other side, the application has been 'made' to him within the meaning of the section, and may be heard and disposed of by his successor in office.

3. We are not prepared to dissent from this view of the law, and we accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.


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