Skip to content


Ambika Charan Hazra Vs. Bhani Ram Rathi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.219
AppellantAmbika Charan Hazra
RespondentBhani Ram Rathi and ors.
Cases ReferredChiranjilal Ramlal v. Tulsiram Jankidass
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rule 1 - review--application granted--appeal--finding of fact--appellate court, power of. - .....to the finding on the evidence adduced before him, which was legal evidence, that this new and important evidence was not in the possession or within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of trial and could not be produced in the course of that trial. on these findings of fact the learned district judge took the view that it was not for him to examine the evidence which bad convinced the subordinate judge that this important evidence was not within the knowledge of the applicant and could not be produced at the trial, that is, that it was not for him to examine that evidence afresh arid consider whether it was such as would have convinced him, in that view of the law he is supported by the authority of the case of abed (ahid) khondkar v. mohendra lal de 29 ind. cas. 282 : 42 c......
Judgment:

1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order made by the District Judge of Alipur. The appeal before him was directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pargannas, by which that Subordinate Judge granted an application for review of judgment. It is argued before us that the learned Subordinate Judge has not come to the necessary findings which would justify a grant of the application for review. But we think that when the Subordinate Judge's judgment is read as a whole he has come to the necessary findings, namely, that there had been a discovery of new evidence, that that new evidence was of an important character and so important as to justify the grant of the application for review. He has further some to the finding on the evidence adduced before him, which was legal evidence, that this new and important evidence was not in the possession or within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of trial and could not be produced in the course of that trial. On these findings of fact the learned District Judge took the view that it was not for him to examine the evidence which bad convinced the Subordinate Judge that this important evidence was not within the knowledge of the applicant and could not be produced at the trial, that is, that it was not for him to examine that evidence afresh arid consider whether it was such as would have convinced him, In that view of the law he is supported by the authority of the case of Abed (Ahid) Khondkar v. Mohendra Lal De 29 Ind. Cas. 282 : 42 C. 830 : 19 C.W.N. 804 and also by the authority of the case of Chiranjilal Ramlal v. Tulsiram Jankidass 66 Ind. Cas. 734 : 81 C.L.J. 134 : 47 C. 568. This Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs, hearing-fee one gold mohur.


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