HARLAL Vs. SUBHKARAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-2
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 08,1952

HARLAL Appellant
VERSUS
SUBHKARAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.)This is an application by Harlal for review of judgment of the Ijlas-i-khas of the former State of Jodhpur and has come to us for disposal in view of the provisions of Ordinance No. XL of 1949 and Ordinance No. XII of 1950.
(2.)The application was made in the following circumstances. A suit had been filed by one Bhoordan for redemption of certain mortgaged property and Harlal was one of the defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Then there was an appeal to the Judicial Superintendent of Phalodi which was also dismissed. The matter went in second appeal to the High Court, of the former State of Jodhpur and the High Court set aside the decree of the two lower Courts and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the mortgage set up. Thereupon, there was an appeal to the Ijlas-i-khas which was heard on the 18th of March 1948 and was accepted on the 26th of December, 1948 by His Highness the Maharaja of the former State of Jodhpur on the advice of the Members of the Ijlas-i-khas. Thereafter, the present application for review of judgment of the Ijlas-i-khas was made. 2A. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite party to the effect that this Court cannot hear the review application and it should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relies on Order 47, Rule 2 which is as follows:
"An application for review of a decree or order of a Court, not being a High Court, upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as is referred to in Rule 1 or the exercise of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to the Judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed; but any such application may, if the Judge who passed the decree or made the order has ordered notice to issue under Rule 4, Sub-rule (2), proviso (a), be disposed of by his successor."

(3.)The present application for review is said to be based on an error apparent on the face of the record and it is therefore, contended that Order 47, Rule 2 applies and as the Judge who had passed the decree or made the order had not ordered notice to issue, the application cannot be heard by this Court which is the successor to the Judge, who in this case was His Highness the Maharaia of the former State of Marwar,


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.