Mukherjee and Ghani, JJ. - (1.) WHEN this application for stay came up for hearing, Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing for the claimants-respondents, submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable inasmuch as it has been clearly recorded in the impugned award that the insurance company did not repudiate the contention of the claimant.
(2.) MR. Roy in his turn relies upon a decision in the case of Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal, AIR 1964 SC 377. Supreme Court of India in Mahabir Lal, AIR 1964 SC 377, held that where a statement appearing in the judgment of a court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily be permitted to be challenged by a party unless both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous. The remedy of a party aggrieved is by way of review. Mr. Soumendra Nath Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, however, strenuously argues that Mahabir Lal's case, AIR 1964 SC 377, is distinguishable. He submits that there are sufficient materials to show that the insurance company strongly contested the claim of the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
(3.) MR. Ganguly, however, relies upon a decision of the Apex Court of India in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497. The Apex Court of India in Jagdish Singh, (2008) 10 SCC 497, held that it is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the court to enter into not only questions of law, but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal, thus, is a rehearing of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, and can come to its own conclusion.;