9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of the trial Court, the appellate Court has failed to consider the document of title, Ex. A. 1, the U.D.R. patta granted in the name of the plaintiff and that the said aspect, in the context of the prior mortgage deed created and executed by defendant, has clearly established the title of the appellant/plaintiff to the suit property. In this context, I have perused the judgment of both Courts below and the findings given by the lower appellate Court with reference to Ex. A-1 in the context of the title, viz., mortgage-deed executed by the defendant which is anterior to Ex. A-1 it is perfectly correct and at par with law. Except the abovesaid contention, no other material has been placed either before the trial Court, or the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the petitioner would frankly concede that there was no error of law or facts apparent on the face of the judgment. But, however his endeavour was that a new fact was found discovered under the pretext of some documentary evidence which directly get itself involved in the instant case and it would give a total guidance for the proper adjudication of the matter in hand. While stating so, learned counsel would advert O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows : Any person considering himself aggrieved (a) and (b) x x x (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it should be an error of inadvertence and in the case of an error of law, it should not have been arrived at by a process of conscious reasoning and the correction suggested or asked for should be such that the bare statement carriage conviction without further reasoning or extraneous matter. Then, the test to be applied is whether the Court itself would have made the correction, if it was aware of the particular fact of circumstance while writing the judgment. An erroneous view on a debatable point of law or a failure to interpret the law correctly would not be a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In this context, I would like to refer that I have had an occasion to discuss the concept of error apparent for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of justice. This philosophy has been carved out from the very object of the statute provided under O. 41, R. 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is, therefore, under the circumstances, if any decree or order passed by a Court is found inherent with apparent error or mistake of law, causing miscarriage of justice and for other sufficient reason by which justice could not be rendered to the aggrieved person, review of the said order of judgment is possible, but certainly not otherwise. The Bar for the respective parties are certainly not in controversy on the above principal of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court, on more than one occasion. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner would agree that the impugned judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . What has become more imperative is that a mere and bare assertion in the affidavit that the party could not trace the documents earlier or he was not in possession not in custody of said documents is not a ground at all to seek legal aid provided under the above rule. It is not the proper function of a review application to supplement the evidence or to make it serve the purpose of a merely introducing evidence which might possibly have had same effect upon the result. 7. The expression, any other sufficient cause found in O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code must be interpreted to mean a reason sufficient or ground at least analogous to those specified immediately before. It must be ejusdem generis to the reasons previously stated. There is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to apply for a review, but the discovery of any new and important matter which was not within the knowledge of the party when the decree was made. The party seeking a review should prove strictly the diligence he claims to have exercised and also that the matter or evidence which he wishes to have access to is, if not absolutely conclusive, at any rate, nearly conclusive. A bare assertion in the affidavit that the party could not trace the documents earlier will not so. It is not the proper function of a review application to supplement the evidence or to make it serve the purpose of merely introducing evidence which might possibly have had some effect upon the result. 9. Importing the above legal ratio to the grievances demonstrated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
