1940 (10) TMI 11 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of judgments delivered by the Federal Court.
2. Principles guiding the Court in deciding review applications.
3. Power of the Federal Court to review its own judgments.
4. Comparison with the Judicial Committee and House of Lords practices.
5. Instances where re-hearing may be entertained.
6. Detailed analysis of two specific cases for review applications.
7. Exercise of power for review applications by the Federal Court.

The Federal Court addressed two ex parte applications for a review of its judgments, emphasizing that it does not function as an appellate body for its own decisions. The Court outlined the principle of finality in litigation to prevent re-opening of cases once decided. While the Court is not a final appellate authority like the Judicial Committee or House of Lords, it holds the highest jurisdiction in the country. It highlighted the limited power of High Courts in British India to review judgments under specific provisions. The Court noted the absence of rules for reviewing its judgments but stated that any such power should be exercised cautiously, following the practices of the Judicial Committee and House of Lords.

The Federal Court referred to historical judgments emphasizing the finality of decisions and the limited circumstances in which a re-hearing may be entertained. It was noted that re-hearing is not allowed based on merits or the discovery of new evidence. The Court discussed the importance of preventing irremediable injustice in exceptional cases but stressed that the general principle remains unchanged over time. The Court highlighted instances where rectification of mistakes or misprisions had been allowed, mainly to prevent injustice due to inadvertent errors.

In analyzing the specific review applications, the Federal Court detailed the facts of each case. In the first case, the appellant sought a review based on alleged prejudice due to the respondents' laches and non-production of a High Court judgment. The Court found no merit in the application, emphasizing that an appellant must succeed on the merits of the case, not due to opponents' laches. In the second case, the applicant raised issues regarding interest rates and counsel's performance, seeking a re-hearing on new points not previously argued. The Court dismissed both applications, cautioning against frivolous review requests and indicating that future applications may face summary treatment.

Ultimately, the Federal Court exercised its power for review applications with extreme caution, emphasizing that such requests will not be encouraged. The Court highlighted the need for applicants to meet exceptional criteria to warrant a re-hearing, warning against unwarranted attempts to reopen cases. Both reviewed applications were dismissed for failing to justify a re-hearing on their merits or exceptional grounds.