RAM DAYAL Vs. KAILASHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was decided by a learned Civil Judge on 23rd March 1948. The learned Judge was transferred and his successor assumed office. An application was filed before him under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for review. The only ground urged as a ground for review was the omission on the part of his predecessor to consider a patta of the year 1901. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the patta of 1901 was not taken into consideration by his predecessor and granted the application. The learned Judge has not yet decided whether the patta, even if taken into consideration, would affect the decision of the case. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (w), Civil P. C.

(2.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Civil Judge, who granted this review, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and so grant it, Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. gives the grounds on which a review application can be filed. They are as follows:

(3.) The only ground for review which was pressed before the lower Court was that the judge whose decree was sought to be reviewed had not taken into consideration a document which was already on the record. The allegation that a Judge did not take into consideration a piece of evidence which was on the record cannot be said to be a "clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree." In Rule 1 (1) of Order 47, Civil P. C., the words used are