RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. NATHU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of a Bench of this Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction. It appears that in the Court of first instance a suit was brought against one Manohar Singh. The 17 of November 1923 was fixed for the settlement of issues. Before that date Manohar Singh came into Court and filed a written statement in which he stated that he was willing to confess judgment and prayed that he might be relieved from the costs. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement and on the 13 th of November 1923 a judgment was given as on a compromise.

(2.) On January 26, 1924, the defendant Manohar Singh filed an application for review before the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge went into the matter and after having recorded certain evidence he gave effect to the application and. re-called his first decree. Against this order of the Subordinate Judge, an appeal was brought to this Court which was filed as a first appeal from order.

(3.) It is true that under the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule (1) Clause (w) an appeal lies against an order under Rule 4, Order XLVII granting an application for review. A reference to Rule 7 of Order XLVII, however, shows that an appeal does not lie in all cases in which the application for review has been granted. An appeal is only entertainable when the grounds specified in Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) had been established.