9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Chinnamani did not execute the alleged suit promissory note and that it has been fabricated. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, the scribe of the promissory note as P.W. 2 and an attestor mentioned therein as P.W. 3. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1. On the evidence it was contended that the suit promissory note is a fabrication on the ground that firstly, the defendant's brother was bedridden with tuberculosis for a year before his death and therefore could not have gone to Virudhachalam to execute the suit promissory note ; secondly, that there were several circumstances like differences in ink in the promissory note and alleged occasions on which the amounts assured in the promissory note were said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made : or (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record ; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 7. It is now well-settled that when a review is sought on the ground of the discovery of new evidence, the evidence must be (1) relevant and (2) of such a character that if it had been given in the suit it might possibly have altered the judgment. As stated by Lord Loreburn, L.C., in Brown v. Dean L.R. (1910) A.C. 373, It (new evidence) must at least be such as is presumably t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed); Chunilal v. Manodara A.I.R. 1952 Kutch 25 , Jutha Premji v. Faria A.I.R. 1952 Kutch 67, Lohku v. Phola A.I.R. 1955 N.U.G. 4842. and V. Mahadeva v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras AIR1956Mad522 . 8. Bearing these principles in mind, if we examine the facts of this case, we find that the petitioner was in possession of these documents from 12th July, 1954 and 27th October, 1955. The suit was disposed of on 10th December, 1957. Therefore a bare assertion in the affidavit that he could not trace these documents earlier will not do. This case was not disposed of solely on the question whether Chinnamani could have gone to Virudhachalarn or not on the date of execution of the suit promissory note. The judgment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind leading to a result which one party may consider to be erroneous or a mistake : Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Athanasius [1955]1SCR520 ; Keshodas Wadhumal v. Syed' Murtuja AIR1952All318 , Dharma Das v. Safiwan A.I.R. 1951 V.P. 44, Ussain v. Kuniraman (1953) 1 M.L.J. 132 : 66 L.W. 70 : AIR1953Mad519 , Abdul Aziz v. Jai Ram (Case law reviewed)., Rameswaraswami v. Ramalinga Raju (1958) 1 An.W.R. 290, Maula Bux and sons v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1956 Vin. Pra. 1. Puyan Liklai Singh v. State A.I.R. 1950 Manipur 18, Durgadas v. Ibrahim Ali A.I.R. 1952 Bhopal 15, and Balchand v. State . On the foot of this, settled law, if we examine the facts of this case, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
