9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the water falling from the terrace of the respondents' house and this arrangement was directed to be incorporated in the decree and no question now arises as to that part of the case. As regards the wall in dispute, the learned Subordinate Judge found that it belonged to the appellants and accordingly decreed that part of the appellants' claim. This was on the 23rd September, 1935. After the judgment was signed and the decree also was issued in accordance with the judgment, the respondents filed I.A. No. 63 of 1935 on the 15th of October, 1935, in which they prayed for a re-hearing of the appeal. The ground of the prayer was that though the trial Court had found that the wall belonged to the respondents, their advocate represented t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on re-hearing and the only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction after it delivered and signed the judgment on the 23rd September, 1935, to alter it in any manner, in view of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, and that therefore the revised decree passed by the lower appellate Court as a result of the re-hearing on the 21st November, 1935, is one passed without jurisdiction and cannot stand. The appellants' Counsel has relied upon several decisions showing that after a judgment has been signed by the Judge, he has no authority to alter it except as provided by Section 152 or Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it is unnecessary to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a review. But the misapprehension owing to which the learned Counsel for the respondents says he did not urge all his arguments in support of the finding recorded in favour of his clients by the first Court, and the consequent erroneous impression, on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge or which, of course, he was not at all to blame but the Counsel was alone responsible - that the latter had no arguments to urge to meet the points raised by the appellants' Counsel seem, to my mind, to be analogous enough to an error apparent on the face of the record to be a sufficient reason for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The decisions in Kyone Hoe Tsee v. Kyon Soon Sun I.L.R (1925) 3 R. 261 at 267 and Nagabhushanam, v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
