9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned Munsif, Lal Bagh, District-Murshidabad in Title Suit No. 258 of 1978. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that previously there was an inspection and in the petition for inspection it was stated that the defendants removed the southern window, of east facing room and filled up that portion by brick on 22-3-88. It was found by the Commissioner that the allegation of the plaintiff was not correct. 4. By a second petition the plaintiff again prayed for local inspection alleging that the defendants had removed the window on the eastern wall of the southern room. That prayer was allowed by the learned Munsif, which was the subject matter in the revision. 5. Contention was raised for the petitioners before that Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y conferred under O. 47, R. 1 of the C.P.C., to an aggrieved person and the transferee Court will also be free to deal with such an application when made before it. A contrary interpretation would not only prevent the remedy being availed of by an aggrieved person, but would also in some cases result in utter confusion and may render nugatory, the remedy itself. 11. Mr. Gupta further contended that R. 5 of 0.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not operate as a bar inasmuch as the said R. 5 contemplates decree or order made by two or more Judges. In the instant case as the judgment or order has been passed by a single Judge R. 5 of 0.47 has no application. 12. In this connection he referred to the Rajasthan decision of Bhera's case (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of appointing the Judges who are to constitute particular Benches for particular business, in these cases the Constitution of the Bench is taken out of his hands, and is provided for by the Code; for the Code says that the applications shall be heard by the Judge or Judges remaining attached to the Code by whom the original decree was given. It will be apposite to mention here that R. 5 of 0.47 is the reproduction of S. 627 of the Old Civil Procedure Code, 1892. 16. In the second place Miss Banerjee contended that where an appeal against the judgment sought to be reviewed is available, a review in that cases is a bar. In this connection she relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Devaraj Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai reported in AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned single Judge in that revision. 21. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the review application inasmuch as the learned Judge, who had passed the judgment in the revisional application, Amulya Kumar Nandi, J. (as His Lordship then was) is no more available in this Court because of his superannuation and as such the ratio that has been laid in the case of Abhoy Charan Mohunt 1989 (16) ILR 788 (sic) (supra) will not be attracted in this case and the ratio that has been laid down in the case of Subbiah, AIR1984Mad206 (supra) and Behera, (supra) will be applicable in this case. 22. The judgment complained of for which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
