RATANLAL Vs. BARDI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is aptly said "A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he could and should iron out the creases". These famous words of Lord Denning are quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in P. Nalla Thampy v. B. L. Shanker, AIR 1984 SC 135. We are also here required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court while deciding this Review Petition arising from the Order dated 28-6-2000 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 497/1998.

(2.) Late Kanhaiyalal who has since died and now represented by the respondents, filed a suit No. 66-A/1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Khilchipur, against the present applicant Ratanlal and others for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 25-6-1992 and the appeal (No. 38-A/1997) filed by the defendants including the present applicant was also dismissed by Ist Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, vide his judgment and decree dated 21-7-1998. Out of the unsuccessful defendants, only the present applicant - defendant came in Second Appeal before this Court. Learned single Judge before whom the appeal came up for admission, dismissed the same in motion hearing in following terms :

(3.) Applicant Ratanlal moved application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the aforesaid order of dismissal, mainly on the ground that no reasons were supplied by the learned single Judge for dismissing the appeal so as to indicate that the Judge has applied his mind to the points raised in appeal memo. According to the applicant this infirmity in the order stares in the face and manifests clear case of error, apparent on the face of the record.