Skip to content


Hari Charan Saha and ors. Vs. Bran Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.903
AppellantHari Charan Saha and ors.
RespondentBran Khan and ors.
Cases Referred and Surendra Nath Talukdar v. Sitanath Das Gupta
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xliii, rule 1(w), order xlvii, rule 7--review--order granting review when appealable. - .....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 decisions in jagar nath prosad singh v. ramavatar singh 14 ind. cas. 39, tripura char an kul v. shoroshi bala 22 ind. cas. 773 and surendra nath talukdar v. sitanath.....
Judgment:

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 decisions in Jagar Nath Prosad Singh v. Ramavatar Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 39, Tripura Char an Kul v. Shoroshi Bala 22 Ind. Cas. 773 and Surendra Nath Talukdar v. Sitanath Das Gupta 21 Ind. Cas. 943. 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 //