Tarini Charan Ghose vs Satto Saran Ghosal Bahadur

Kemp, J.—These are three applications to review the judgment of this Court, dated 30th of August 1865. It appears that Baboo Digambar Mitter brought five separate suits for enhancement of rent against Raja Satto Saran Ghosal. The five cases were appealed to this Court specially, and on the 30th August 1865 the Court (present: Kemp and Seton-Karr, JJ.) dismissed the appeals. The Raja appealed two of the five cases, the valuations of which were above 10,000 rupees, to the Privy Council, and the decision of this Court was reversed. The Raja now applies, praying that, with reference to the decision of the Privy Council, this Court will reverse its decision in the three cases, which were not appealed to England.

The other side contend that as this application has been made more than 90 days from the date of the decision of this Court and as the applicant did not ask for a review of the decision of this Court in the three cases, the subject of this application, nor take any step to obtain the permission of the Privy Council to include those three cases in the appeal made to that tribunal, the application ought to be rejected. A decision in Shama Churn Chuckerbutty v. Bindabun Chunder Roy Case No. 1395 of 1866; January 30th, 1866. (B.L.R. Sup. 892), and other decisions by Divisional Benches following that ruling, have been quoted.

We think that the present application must be granted. The ruling of the Full Bench refers to a case in which a new exposition of the law had been laid down contrary to that which had governed the decision of cases for years past. It was held that it would not be right to permit a review of decisions which had been passed years ago, merely because this Court had taken a different view of the law from that hitherto taken, not by one Bench, but by the Courts throughout the country.

In the case before us, the interpretation put by the Court upon a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Sree Mutty Ranee Surnomoyee vs. Maharajah , and upon Regulation XI of 1822, was held by their Lordships (of the Privy Council) to be erroneous. One decision governed the five cases appealed to this Court, and the cases are cognate cases.

It is true that the applicant might have asked this Court to review its decision in the three cases which were not appealed to the Privy Council, or he might, following the precedent laid down in the case of Baboo Gopal Lall Thakoor vs. Teluck Chunder Rai , have applied to that tribunal to call for the three cases and decide them with the cases appealed; but it is clear to us that the applicant did not take this step, because he was under the impression that an appeal in a case of a valuation below 10,000 rupees was wholly inadmissible.

Taking, therefore, into consideration that the five cases were cognate cases; that one judgment governed the five cases; and that the judgment of this Court had been set aside in appeal by the superior Court, we think that a just and reasonable cause has been shown by the applicant, why he did not apply for a review at an earlier date.

We may observe that this application had been made within 90 days from the decision of the Privy Council. The decision of this Court in special appeals, Nos. 937, 1635, and 3288, as also the decision of the Principal Sudder Ameen of the 24-Pergunnas, are reversed, and the special appeals, Nos. 937, 1635 and 3288, are decreed with costs, including the costs of this application.