- (1.) In this case the plaintiff sued to establish her right as a co-sharer in certain property. She obtained a decree in the first Court, but this decree was set aside on appeal. The plaintiff then applied for a review, on the ground that a material issue in the case had not been decided; that through inadvertence a certain document had not been brought to the notice of the Court on the argument on the appeal; and that she was now ready to produce additional evidence in support of the same issue. Notice was given to the defendant, and after hearing the parties, the Judge made the following order: This day the petition for review came to be argued before me. It appears from the original judgment, that the Court did not express any opinion on the point as to whether the sale impugned was held in a private manner as alleged by the plaintiff, or not. This, no doubt, is a defect which ought to be rectified by review. Again, a certain challan, which was in the record, has not at all been noticed in the judgment. The pleader for the plaintiff says, that it altogether escaped him to bring it to the notice of the Court. The plaintiff has also filed copies of certain other petitions with the present petition, to show that the defendant, talookdar, was perfectly aware that she was an 8 anna co-sharer of the tenure. I think it right to ascertain the point of fraud or no fraud with reference to the said documents. The review is accordingly admitted to try the said two points. When the case was heard in review, the Judge reversed his former decision, and affirmed the original decree.
(2.) From this decree the defendant has now appealed, and the first substantial objection which he has made is that the Judge was wrong in admitting the review without assigning any reason why the additional evidence was not produced at the trial.
(3.) It appears to me, however, on reading the above order, that the object; of the review was to take into consideration a material issue which the Court had omitted to consider. Why the Court had omitted to consider it, is not very clear; but I am not prepared to say that this was not a legal ground for reviewing a judgment.;