BRIJ MOHAN DIXIT Vs. GOBARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Pandit Brij Mohan Dixit against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Banaras rejecting his application for review of judgment. The reason given by the learned Judge for throwing out the review application is that it was presented to the Munsarim and not to him (the Judge ).

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was not obligatory on the part of the applicant to present the petition for review to the Judge personally and that presentation to the Munsarim of the Court amounted to a substantial compliance with law. I have, therefore, to examine how far presentation to Munsarim is permitted by law.

(3.) ORDER 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. , lays down that in certain given circumstances and on grounds specified in the said rule any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order of a court may apply for a review of Judgment "to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. " rule 2 imposes further restrictions on the right of presentation of such petitions and lays down that except in certain given circumstances the application for review must be presented to the very Judge who passed the order or made the decree sought to be reviewed. If the learned Judge has been transferred or has, for any other reason, quitted office no petition of the kind contemplated by Rule 2 can be presented at all. What is significant is that there is no indication in either of these two Rules that presentation can be made to any other officer of the Court as distinct from the presiding officer. Whenever it is the intention of the law that presentation to a ministerial officer should be deemed sufficient it has expressly said so. For instance, it is provided by Order 21, Rule 10 that an applicant for execution of decree "shall apply to the Court which passed the decree or to the officer (if any) appointed in this behalf. . " the words "officer (if any) appointed; in this behalf" do not find place either in Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 47. By a comparison of the language of Order 21, Rule 10 with the language of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 47 one is driven unmistakably to the conclusion that it was not the intention of the (sic) to permit presentation of review application (sic) before the Munsarim.