NAMINATH Vs. GOVIND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review application filed by the plaintiff in the original suit (the present petitioner) praying that the judgment passed in Appeal No. 75/2 of 1954-55 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad be reviewed as per the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ground for review is that the plaintiff-petitioner had obtained a license under the Hyderabad Money Lenders' Act for the year 1358F. i.e., at the time of the suit transaction which took place on the 17th Meher 1358F. But when his appeal came up for decision before the Hyderabad High Court, his Advocate under a mistaken impression represented that the plaintiff-petitioner had no license at the time of the suit transaction. Hence an adverse order was passed against his claim by the Hyderabad High Court. He alleges that in fact he had a license at the relevant period, but the fact of the existence of the said license had escaped his mind. It was found only on 20-12-1955 after the passing of the judgment by the Hyderabad High Court on 21-11-1955. He has, therefore, prayed for a review of the said judgment.

(2.) No doubt the review application was held before the Hyderabad High Court but due to the integration of States, the petition has been transferred to this Court for decision after ordering notice to the respondent. The point that arises in this review application is, whether the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been satisfied by the petitioner. The relevant provisions are as follows : "Any person considering himself aggrieved......''after reciting clauses (a), (b) and (c), the section runs as follows:

(3.) It is strenuously contended by Mr. Murlidhara Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the fact of the possession of the license was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is only later that he came to know about it and as soon as he came to know about it, he made a search, found it and produced it before the Court. The admission, therefore, made by the Advocate for the petitioner before the Hyderabad High Court at the time of the hearing of the appeal is made on an erroneous impression and therefore, should not bind his client. He relies on the decision reported in AIR 1937 Bom 81, Motilal Chimanram v. Sarupchand Prithirai, where it is held as follow: