1931 (1) TMI 21 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to Letters Patent appeals.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to review its own judgment in Letters Patent appeals.
3. Interpretation of Section 114 of the CPC in the context of Letters Patent appeals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to Letters Patent Appeals:
The primary question was whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to the hearing of a Letters Patent appeal. It was established that by Section 117 of the CPC, the provisions of the Code apply to chartered High Courts unless specifically exempted. The judgment clarified that the procedure before and at the hearing of a Letters Patent appeal by a Bench of the High Court, and the delivery of the judgment, are governed by Order 41, Schedule 1, Civil P.C., except Rule 35. Hence, the CPC is applicable to Letters Patent appeals.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Review its Own Judgment in Letters Patent Appeals:
The central issue was whether a Bench of the High Court has the jurisdiction to review its own judgment delivered in a Letters Patent appeal. The judgment analyzed Section 114 of the CPC, which allows a review of a judgment in three specific cases. It was argued that a judgment given by a Bench of the High Court hearing a Letters Patent appeal falls within the language of Section 114(b), which allows a review of a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by the Code. The judgment concluded that the decree resulting from a Letters Patent appeal is a decree from which no appeal is allowed by the CPC, thus permitting a review under Section 114.

3. Interpretation of Section 114 of the CPC in the Context of Letters Patent Appeals:
The interpretation of Section 114(b) was crucial. The judgment emphasized that the words "by this Code" in Section 114(b) should be taken into account. It was argued that the jurisdiction to hear Letters Patent appeals is derived from the Letters Patent and not from the CPC. Therefore, the judgment in a Letters Patent appeal is not a judgment "allowed by the Code." The judgment concluded that if Section 114 were intended to apply to judgments not allowed by the Code, the words "by this Code" would be omitted. Consequently, Section 114 does not provide for the review of judgments passed in the exercise of jurisdiction derived from other laws, including the Letters Patent.

Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:

Mukerji, J.:
Mukerji, J. concluded that a review of judgment is allowed in the case under consideration. He emphasized that the procedure at the hearing and the method of deciding are dictated by the CPC. He also highlighted that the judgment of the Privy Council in Sabitri Thakurain v. Savi supports the view that the CPC applies to all cases coming before the High Court.

Bennet, J.:
Bennet, J. provided a detailed analysis and concluded that there is no right to apply for a review of the judgment of a Bench of the High Court made in Letters Patent appeal. He stressed that the jurisdiction to hear such appeals is derived from the Letters Patent and not from the CPC. He also pointed out that the words "by this Code" in Section 114(b) indicate that the section is not intended to apply to judgments passed in the exercise of jurisdiction derived from other laws.

Final Conclusion:
The majority of the Judges composing the Full Bench concluded that no application for review of judgment lies where an appeal has been decided under the Letters Patent.