LAXMICHAND Vs. SHIAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision in short are that the trial Court recorded its decision of issue No. 6 against the plaintiff, holding that since the Hundi was unstamped, it could not be tendered in evidence. This issue was decided on 4-1-56. About three months after this, Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court, in Chhutilal v. (Danbir Seth) Laxmichand vs. Shiamlal (10. 03. 1958 -MPHC) Page 2 of 2 Danbir Seth) Laxmichand vs. Shiamlal (10. 03. 1958 -MPHC) Page 2 of 2 Bhagmal, AIR 1956 Madh-B 177 (A), held that if a 'hundi' is executed in the territory known as the former Gwalior State, then no stamp duty was required. Relying upon this decision, the plaintiff submitted an application dated 27-4-56, seeking permission of the Court to prove the Hundi. The plaintiff did not indicate in his application under what law such an application was given. But it is evident that the application is in the nature of a review, asking the court to review its decision of Issue No. 6. This application was rejected by the trial Court. And it is against this that the present revision is filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submits that any court can alter an interlocutory order and can alter even the decision of an issue before passing final judgment. I express no opinion whether the Court can alter an interlocutory order or not, because the question does not arise in this case. But I am quite clear in my mind that once the decision on an issue is given, the court cannot change it by reviewing it merely because 'subsequent to the decision, the law on the point has been changed either by statute or by a decision of a superior Court. Mr. Bhagwandas Gupta has failed to submit any authority to Support his point. He has, however, referred to the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court Civil Revn. No. 9l of 1956 (B ). But I find the decision more in support of my view than in support of what he has submitted. My learned brother Dixit J. has observed that the lower Court could not have reviewed its order, holding the Hundi to be inadmissible in evidence merely because subsequently in another case this Court (High, Court) had ruled otherwise.

(3.) FOR reasons stated above the revision is dismissed with costs.