SADASHIV VISHNU SONAR Vs. SAKHARAM RAGHUNATH SONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications that I should declare the cases as being fit for appeal from judgments of mine passed in second appeal.

(2.) The learned advocate, who appears in Civil Application No. 937 of 1931, relies upon the facts that in the case concerned an important question of law was involved; that I reversed the decree of the lower Court; that I characterised the questions of law involved as being complicated, and I considered them with some care and detail in my judgment. I notice with surprise and admire the restraint which has caused the omission of the ground that my decision is wrong. But I could not have allowed myself to be misled, or the party to be prejudiced, by this large-hearted omission : even if the omission had not been made up for by the almost irresistibly tactful suggestion that Courts are apt on such questions to take divergent views-leaving me to infer that another Court might take a view different from mine.

(3.) In other cases, the ground of application is the very reverse that I have not considered it necessary to deliver any detailed judgment for refusing to interfere with the decision of the lower Court: and thus overlooked the importance of the question before me. I appreciate that the error may be greatest where one fails to see that there are difficulties: and the failure to have doubts may itself vitiate the decision.