AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 129 wordsRichard Garth, C.J.—In this case, I think that the Munsif has taken a correct view of both points.
The notice-clause in Section 21 of Act XI of 1865 appears to me to be applicable only to those cases where a new trial cannot be applied for within seven days after the judgment, in consequence of there being no sitting of the Court. Where the application itself is made within seven days, the notice appears quite unnecessary. Then again, if the grounds upon which the new trial is moved are proper grounds for granting a review, I agree with the Munsif that the plaintiff has a right to apply u/s 623 of the CPC without resorting to the Act of 1865. In that case no notice would be required.