NATIONAL RUBBER WORKS Vs. DAISY MANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment was delivered and decree was passed on 11th December 2002 in the instant F.M.A. No. 468 of 2001. Thereafter on 13th January, 2003 the plaintiff/respondent being the petitioner filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for review of the judgment and order dated December 11, 2002 passed by this Court being RVW No. 134 of 2003. Simultaneously, thereafter on 15-1-2003 the defendant/appellant being the applicant filed an application for correction of the judgment and/or decree passed in the instant F.M.A. 468 of 2001 by this Court. The said application for correction has been numbered as 479 of 2003.

(2.) Now therefore two applications, one for review of judgment and decree and the other for correction of clerical/typographical errors apparent in the judgment and decree passed in F.M.A. No. 468 of 2001 are taken up together for hearing.

(3.) Let meconsider the application for review first since it has been filed earlier that is on 13-1-2001. In the application for review filed by the plaintiff/respondent from paragraphs 1 to 15 the entire plaint case including the prayers made out in the plaint have been stated. In paragraph 16 it has been stated that the appellant contested the suit by filing the written statement. In paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 the petitioner in review has stated about the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge and the learned Appellate Court below, including the observations made therein. In these 3 paragraphs it has also been stated that the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and the respondent preferred Title Appeal No. 134 of 2001. In the Appellate Court below the respondent filed an application under Order 41, Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the C.P. Code praying for Commissioner to be appointed to inspect the residence of Mr. Charles Montosh. In paragraph 19 it has been stated that the learned Appellate Court below remanded the matter for taking further evidence. In paragraph 20 reference has been made to the instant appeal being FMA No. 468 of 2001. Now in paragraph 22 three grounds have been set out as ground for review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in FMA No. 468 of 2001. The said three grounds are hereinbelow :