BENI MADHAB GHOSE Vs. GANGA GABIND MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that we have to consider in the present application is one which we have often considered before, and upon which I for my part have, and as I understand most of the other Judges also have, expressed a decided opinion. It is, whether in a case, an appeal having been carefully considered by this Court on a point of law argued at length, and the Court having come to a deliberate conclusion on that point, the party dissatisfied with the judgment of this Court, has an absolute right to be heard by fresh counsel in an application for review, merely for the purpose of convincing the Court that its first opinion upon that point of law was erroneous. Mr. Paul contends that a party has such right, and declares that such right is perfectly clear. I can only say that it appears to me to be quite clear the other way. Eights of parties and the duty of the Court, in dealing with petitions of reviews must be gathered, if anywhere, from sections 376 and 378 of the Procedure Code (reads).

(2.) It seems to me clear that the only case in which the Court is bound to grant a review is where it shall be of opinion that the review desired is necessary to correct an evident error or omission, or is otherwise requisite for the ends of "justice."

(3.) Mr. Paul contends that his object in this case is to correct an evident error in law, in the judgment of the Court. It is necessary therefore to consider what can be called an evident error. Can it be said that an error which is capable of being established by a lengthened argument upon a point which admits of two opinions is an evident error I think not.