9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Review of an order passed by a District Judge under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863. Analysis: The judgment primarily deals with the question of whether a District Judge has the authority to review an order passed by him under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863. The petitioner argued for the review based on the Code of Civil Procedure and the inherent power of the Court. However, the Act itself does not explicitly provide for a review process, and the provisions of the Code can only be applicable with reference to Section 141, which pertains to procedural matters and not substantive rights. The Court emphasized that the power to review must be explicitly conferred by statute, and it cannot be assumed as a general right. The judgment cited various cases to establish that the general rule is that a Court cannot review its own decision unless permitted by law. The petitioner's claim that a better opportunity to present evidence would have led to a different decision was not considered a valid ground for a review. Moving on to the alternative argument of inherent power of the Court to review, the judgment discussed precedents like Syed Tuffozool Hossein Khan v. Ragunath Persad and highlighted that such cases are exceptions rather than the rule. The Court reiterated that the power to review must be granted by statute and cannot be assumed as a default authority of the Court. The judgment emphasized that a review is not a right to reargue a case but is typically based on new evidence, a change in law, or other significant factors that could impact the original decision. The judgment concluded that the lower court had no grounds to review its order, and thus, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs. In a separate opinion by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., it was further clarified that the power to review a decision is not inherent in a District Judge under Section 10 of the Religious Endowments Act. The judge emphasized that a review is akin to an appeal and must be explicitly provided for by statute. The judgment cited various cases to support the view that the power to review is not inherent in a Court and must be conferred by law. The judge agreed with the dismissal of the petition and reiterated that a District Judge does not have the authority to review his own decision under the Religious Endowments Act.
|
