The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code - Order 47, Rule 1 and Order 43, Rule 1(w) in the context of allowing a review of judgment based on the discovery of new evidence.

Odgers, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of West Tanjore and also an application to convert S.R. No. 3185 of 1927 into a Civil Revision Petition. The suit O.S. No. 14 of 1925 was brought by the plaintiff in forma pauperis praying that a certain sale deed by the 4th defendant (who is the father of the plaintiff) in favour of the 2nd defendant may be declared inoperative and invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant became insolvent and his estate was vested In the Official Assignee of Madras. The suit proceeded and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. In that state of things the Official Assignee of Madras applied for a review of judgment on the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which had come to light after judgment had been pronounced. These new matters are two letters marked A and B which have been placed before us, the first from P.W. 3 to the 2nd defendant, and latter asimilar letter from P.W. 1. The learned Judge allowed the review and in the course of it has stated that under the circumstances stated by the Official Assignee in his affidavit I think the documents now produced have to be considered in evidence

2. and he continued What bearing they have on the questions involved in the suit is another matter.

3. It Is not contended before us on behalf of the plaintiff who is seeking to impugn this order of the learned Judge that the matter is not new or that the Official Assignee could have discovered it previously or anything of that sort. The learned District Judges order is attacked simply and solely on the ground that he has not found that the matter is important as required by Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. An argument of considerable length has been addressed to us on the question as to whether a matter of this sort is appeal able. In other words the conflict (which from the decisions of this Court appears to have lasted for some time) between the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(w) and Order 47, Rule 7 of C.P.C. again appears in the case before us. The learned vakil for the appellant presses upon us that although Rule 7(b) of Order 47 says that an order granting the application may be objected to on the ground that it is in contra vention of Rule 4, Sub-Rule 2, we must read into the sub-rule everything after Sub-clause (c) of Rule 1. In other words, this must be imported into Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 4 to form a condition precedent before the Court is at liberty to form an opinion that the application for review should be granted. It will be easily seen that this is only another way of saying that an order under Rule 1 is appeal able by implication. As against this we have the precise and definite provisions of Rule 7 which allows an appeal under certain conditions and to an extent limited to certain matters and it seems to me that there is abundant authority in this Court for holding not that you are to take the general provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(w) and say that they dominate the provisions of Rule 7, Order 47, but to the exactly contrary effect, vis., that the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(w), are to be read subject to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 7. For instance, there is the case in Tholan v. Kunhikutty (1912) 24 M L J 93 where it is clearly laid down that an order granting a review can be appealed against only on one of the grounds set out in Order 47, Rule 7. The question was argued at length on the opposition of Order 43, R.1; (w) to O, 47, Rule 7. Srinivasa Aiyar v. Nataraja Aiyar (1915) 2 L W 366 is to the same effect and Maduru Brahmayya v. Vedula Vellamma (1916) 31 M L J 509. This body of authority seems to me to be sufficient to show that the matter is not appeal able. The case in Ramanadhan Chetti v. Naraycnan Chetti (1904) I L R 27 M 602 : 14ML J 321 has been quoted contra, but the learned Judges evidently entertained some doubt as to the sub stantiability of their view because they say Should this view not