BIRKESHWAR NARAIN SINGH Vs. GANESH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of a judgment of Jwala Prasad, J. in Second Appeal No. 781 of 1930. There is also an application under Section 5, Lim. Act, for extension of the time for filing the application for review. Both these applications were presented before Jwala Prasad, J., and his Lordship was pleased to issue notice on the opposite party. The matter has now been referred to me for decision by his Lordship, the Chief Justice.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Sushil Madhab Mullick that I have no jurisdiction to hear this application for review. The objection is based upon the provisions of Order 47, Rule 5, Civil P.C. and it is contended that no other Judge of this Court can hear this application inasmuch as Sir Jwala Prasad continued attached to this Court at the time when the application for review was presented and he was not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application referred.

(3.) The contention of the learned Advocate for the opposite party is that it is only in cases when the Judge, whose decision is sought to be reviewed, is absent on the date when the application id made, or the date next to that on which the application is presented, and remains absent from Court for a period of six months and is thus precluded from considering the decree or order for a period of six months calculated from the date next after the application is filed, that another Judge can hear the application for review. No authority has been placed before me in support of this contention and I do not think that the objection raised is sound. In my opinion what the rule provides for is that, if on account of the absence of the Judge for a period of six months after the filing of the application the application cannot be heard by that Judge, then it can be heard by another Judge of the Court.