MOKH RAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for reviewing an order of the Board dated 10. 12. 56 in case No. 11/ganganagar of 1956.

(2.) THE main argument urged in support of the application is that the applicant could not produce before the lower courts as well as the Board of Revenue some of the important documents which he in spite of due diligence could not then procure, and that now as he has been able to discover this fresh piece of evidence in the shape of these documents, the Board may reconsider its decision in the light of these documents, in accordance with the provisions of O. 41, R. 1 C. P. C. THE documents produced before us consist of copies of (i) an application for temporary allotment of land which was filed by the applicant (ii) a copy of report of Asst. Collector, dated 7. 10. 52, and (iii) an order of the Collector, Ganganagar dated 13. 1. 52. In the decision sought to be reviewed we have fully discussed the facts and law as were put before us by the parties. THE documents now produced have been perused and we find it difficult to believe that these were not within the knowledge of the applicant. Further we are not satisfied that the applicant inspite of due diligence could not get hold of these documents, copies of which were easily available, from the Revenue offices. It is well settled that where a litigant has obtained a judgment in a court of justice, be is by law, entitled not to be deprived of that judgment without solid grounds. Where therefore a review of a judgment is asked for by a party, greatest care ought to be exercised by the court in granting the review especially where the ground of review is the discovery of fresh evidence. It is so easy for a party who has lost his case to see what the weak part of his case was and the temptation to lay and procure evidence which will strengthen that weak part and put a different complexion upon that part of the case is always very strong THE rule that permits a new trial to be granted on account of the discovery of new evidence has therefore been fenced round with many limitation: Thus the party asking for a new trial must show that there was no remissness on his part in adducing all possible evidence at the trial. Further the new evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed and such that if adduced, it would practically be conclusive, i. e. , evidence of such a class as to render it probable almost beyond doubt that the judgment would be different. Further before allowing an application in review on the ground of discovery of fresh evidence there must be strong evidence to prove that inspite of due diligence the same could not be made available in the earlier proceedings It must be proved beyond doubt that the applicant was ignorant of the existence of the matter or evidence at the time of the decree or order sought to be reviewed. In Kessowji Issur vs. G. I. P. Railway, their Lordships of the P. C. summarised the rule as follows : - "now the Code of Civil Procedure permits such applications for review on the ground of such discovery" (i. e. discovery of new and and important matter of evidence) "but it enacts very strict conditions so as to prevent litigants lying on their oars when they ought to be looking for evidence it enjoins the Judge to require the facts as to the absence of negligence to be strictly proved. " In the case before us no such circumstances have been shown to exist THE documents on which reliance has been placed are not very old ones and these should have been in the knowledge of the applicant who had been contesting the allotment of land for the last few years. Excepting the affidavit of Birbal there is no other evidence to prove that these documents were either not within his knowledge or that the same could not be obtained and produced before the court in time when the case was heard by them, As laid down in A T. R. 1955 H. P. page 25, which followed AIR 1915 P. C. 78 and A. I. R. l942 A. D 82 where the petitioner applies for review of the order on the ground that the petitioner could not produce certain documents earlier despite exercise of due diligence a bare assertion in the affidavit that he could not produce the document will not do. In this view of the matter we do not consider it a fit case for allowing this application and accordingly dismiss the same. .