SYED MOHAMMAD ISMAIL Vs. JANAKI SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for a review of a judgment in Janki Saran V/s. Mahomed Ismail A.I.R. 1932 Pat. 273 delivered by a Bench of this Court consisting of Ross, J., and Jyotirmoy Chatterji, J. The application for review was admitted for hearing by Ross, J., Chatterji, J., having at that time ceased to be a member of the Court, and the notice was issued and the matter has been argued before us by Mr. Hasan Imam on behalf of the applicant as to whether a review can or cannot be heard upon the grounds urged by him. The grounds which he has urged are three in number.

(2.) To deal with the first ground it appears on his exposition of the facts that when the case was argued before the Bench the learned Judges reserved judgment and when they came to deliver judgment they based their decision upon principles of law which they said were supported by certain decisions in the English reports. As a matter of fact those decisions in the English reports were not referred to in the course of the hearing of the case and we are assured by Mr. Hasan Imam, and it may be true, that he could have shown, had he had the opportunity, that those cases did not support the principles of law as laid down by the learned Judges and had nothing to do with the case. For the purposes of this decision I will assume that he would have been able to establish that contention, although we have had no opportunity of deciding the merits of the case. That fact even if it be established is not one of the facts which entitles a party to a review of judgment.

(3.) The grounds upon which a review can be allowed are stated in Order 47, Rule 1. The fact which I have referred to does not come under the head, and admittedly does not come under the head of discovery of new and important matter or evidence nor does it come under the head of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and there is a long series of decisions which lay down the principle that the words "any other sufficient reason" are ejusdem generis with the words of the section. In my opinion therefore the fact that the judgment purports to rely upon decisions to which the advocates at the trial had no opportunity of referring is not a ground for review. I may here say that it is a well established principle that if there comes to the knowledge of the Court cases which in their opinion establish that one party or the other is entitled to a decision, that ordinarily, unless the cases are statements of elementary principles, the side against whom the decision is to be given, on the basis of those cases, should be given an opportunity of dealing the cases, and it might have been better, assuming that Mr. Hasan Imam is right in his contention of law, that Ross, J., should have set down the case, on discovery of these cases, for further argument based on those decisions, but the course taken does not come within the class of circumstances which give an applicant a right to a review of the decision.