RANBIR PRASAD Vs. SHEOBARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review. The judgment which is sought to be reviewed was delivered by us on 25 March 1938 and is to be found in Sheo Baran Singh v. Ranbir Prasad . It might be mentioned at the very outset that there is a clerical error at page 542 in the tenth line from the bottom where Sheo Baran Singh ought to be read for Ranbir Prasad, and to that extent the judgment will be corrected. The facts of the case are stated at length in our previous judgment. It might however be mentioned that Sheo Baran Singh had applied under Section 30, Clause 2, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act, for reduction in the amount of interest calculated in a decree which had been passed against him at the instance of Ranbir Prasad on 9 August 1932, and the Court below rejected that application on 6 February 1937. In revision we set aside the order of the Court below and disagreed with the views entertained by that Court. The Court below had held that the decree which was sought to be amended under Section 30, Agriculturists Belief Act, had been satisfied and that Sheo Baran Singh's application was further incompetent by reason of Section 7, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of this application because it was not in conformity with Section 114 and Order 47, Civil P.C. In the present application it is said that certain wrong information was given to the High Court by the counsel for Ch. Sheo Baran Singh and some important points of fact and law were not brought to our notice and therefore our decision is liable to be reviewed. After having beard counsel we are not satisfied that we were misled by any wrong information, and for the rest the utmost that can be said is that a different view on certain questions of law is possible, but that is hardly any ground for review. In Chajju Ram V/s. Neki (1922) 9 A.I.R. P.C. 112 their Lordships of the Privy Council said that Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., 1908, must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which review of a decree or order is now permitted, and the words "any other sufficient reason" mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously. A Court hearing an application for a review of a decree made on appeal has therefore no power to order a review upon the ground that the decision was wrong on the merits.

(2.) They emphasized the same view in Bisheshwar Partap Sahi V/s. Parath Nath . In Bala Prasad Vs. Balkrishan a Bench of this Court of which one of us was member, held that an application for review of judgment under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., does not lie on the ground of an error of law and in any event the error must be so patent that it could be said to be apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) This application for review was argued before us for more than a day, and this time could not have been occupied if the error of law was apparent on the face of the record. We therefore feel inclined to agree with the preliminary objection, but we have thought fit to discuss briefly the merits also of the application. We had held that the decree that was sought to be am. ended under the Agriculturists Belief Act had not been satisfied, and we still maintain the same view in spite of what has been said by Mr. Gopi Nath Kunzru on behalf of the applicant. After the passing of the decree proceedings were taken under the U.P. Regulation of Sales Act, 26 of 1934, and the value and the amount of the agricultural land was determined in accordance with Section 3, and then under Section 4 an option was given to the decree-holder to take some agricultural land and the decree-holder some to have exercised the option mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 4, and on 22 August, 1935 the Assistant Collector passed the following order: The property, viz. 6 biswas, 10 biswansis, 10 kachwansis and 11 unwansis is offered to decree-holder in full satisfaction of the decree and will be transferred to him.