9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent: The primary question referred to the Full Bench was whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review renders the hearing of the review application incompetent. Legal Provisions: Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) allows for the filing of an application for review under certain conditions, specifically: - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but has not been preferred, - (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or - (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC outlines the grounds and circumstances under which a review application can be filed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 allows a person who has not appealed to apply for a review even after an appeal has been filed by another party. Judicial Precedents: The judgment reviewed various precedents, including: - Ramanandhan Chetti v. Narayanan Chetti (1904) 27 Mad. 602, which was overruled by Chemma Reddi v. Peddabi Reddi (1909) 32 Mad. 416. The latter case held that the subsequent filing of an appeal does not make the review application incompetent. - Bhurrut Chander v. Ram Gunga Sein (1866) 5 W.R. 59, which indicated that a review application filed before an appeal remains competent despite the subsequent filing of an appeal. - Pyari Mohan Kundu v. Kalu Khan (1917) 4 A.I.R. 29, which supported the view that a review application can proceed if it is filed before the appeal is heard. Analysis: The judgment emphasized the accepted view that the CPC does not contemplate simultaneous proceedings of review and appeal. However, it also does not specifically state that a review application becomes incompetent after the filing of an appeal. The judgment noted that the appellate court should stay the hearing of the appeal until the review application is disposed of to avoid conflicting decisions. The judgment further discussed that Section 114 of the CPC implies that a review application is allowed against an appealable decree or order only when no appeal has been preferred. This suggests that the court's power to pass orders on a review application is subject to the condition that no appeal has been filed against the decree or order sought to be reviewed. Conclusion: The judgment concluded that the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC, as well as the judicial precedents that emphasize the need to avoid simultaneous proceedings and conflicting decisions. The judgment highlighted that the review application should be heard only if the CPC explicitly allows it, even after an appeal has been preferred.
|
