Raghu Singh vs Mahant Krishna Deyal Gir and Others

Dawson Miller, C.J.—This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya dated the 20th May 1922 granting a review of a judgment of his predecessor. It appears that one of the important points to be determined in the first judgment was the date upon which the plaintiff separated from the rest of his family. The Trial Court found in favour of the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal decided that question in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the appeal. Subsequently one of the defendants applied to the successor of the learned Subordinate Judge to grant a review of judgment on the ground that the learned Subordinate Judge had not mentioned in his judgment two documents one of which was a plaint in a suit which the plaintiff and his brothers had brought on a mortgage and in which there was apparently an admission that the family had separated at a later date than the plaintiff alleged in the present case, and the other document was a document connected therewith, it was the decree passed in that case. It is quite true that the learned Subordinate Judge who gave the decision complained of did not in terms refer to those two documents in his judgment; but he did, as far as can be gathered from reading the judgment, give what appear to have been convincing reasons for arriving at his conclusions of fact. The learned Subordinate Judge whose order is now under appeal considered that the mere fact that no mention is made in the previous judgment of these two documents was in itself a sufficient ground for granting the review and he made the order accordingly. From that decision the present appeal is brought.

It seems to me that the ground alleged is not one which comes within the purview of Order XLVII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The only ground upon which a review can be obtained according to Order XLVII is the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, is not within the applicant''s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. It has been decided by the Judicial Committee in the case of Chhajju Ram v. Neki 72 Ind. Cas. 536 : 3 L. 127 : 49 I.A. 144 : 30 M.L.T. 295 : 28 C.W.N. 697 : 41 P.L.R. 1922 : 3 P.L.T. 435; AIR (1922) (P.C.) 112 : 16 L.W. 37 : 17 P.W.R. 1922 : 43 M.L.J. 332 : 24 Bom. L.R. 1238 : 4. U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 99 : 36 C.L.J. 459. that the words" any other sufficient reason in that Order mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously. It follows from that that these words "any other sufficient reason" are not of a wide and general application so as to give the Court a, discretion in such cases whether to allow: a review or not. The reason there indicated must be some reason analogous to the two grounds of review mentioned immediately before. It seems to me that the mere fact that a Judge has not in terms referred to certain of the evidence in favour of one party or the other is not a sufficient reason entitling that party to came before the Court subsequently and seeks to have a review of that judgment. It is undoubtedly a matter which might be urged in appeal, if any appeal were permissible on questions of fact; but I think it would be stretching the language of the order too far to say that the mere fact that certain evidence has not been specifically mentioned in the judgment is a good reason within Order XLVII, Rule 1, for granting a review.

In my opinion this appeal must succeed, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 20th of May 1922 will be set aside and the decree which it reversed will be restored. The appellant is entitled to his costs from the respondent Mahant Krishna Deyal Gir, who has appeared.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.