Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 227
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Kinkhede
LALCHAND – Appellant
Versus
IMDAD ALI – Respondent
Decided on : 17-11-1927
The interpretation of the word 'evidence' in Order 47, Rule 1 Civil P.C. should not be confined only to 'documentary' evidence and should include 'oral' evidence as well.
Headnote:
Evidence - Interpretation of 'evidence' in Order 47, Rule 1 Civil P.C. - The court held that the word 'evidence' should not be confined only to 'documentary' evidence and should include 'oral' evidence as well. The court found that the lower court acted with material irregularity in its jurisdiction and remanded the case for proper enquiry and disposal of the application for review on its merits.
Fact of the Case:
The Court found that the lower court had put a narrow construction on the word 'evidence' and declined to hold any enquiry into the facts relevant to the discovery, leading to material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the lower court acted with material irregularity and, therefore, remanded the case for proper enquiry and disposal of the application for review on its merits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the word 'evidence' in Order 47, Rule 1 Civil P.C. and the failure of the lower court to conduct a proper enquiry into the relevant facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that the word 'evidence' should not be confined only to 'documentary' evidence and should include 'oral' evidence as well. The court also emphasized the need for a proper enquiry into the relevant facts in review proceedings.
Final Decision: The application was allowed with costs and the case was remanded for proper enquiry and disposal of the application for review on its merits.
Kinkhede, A J C—This revision petition must succeed. The Court below appears to have put a very narrow construction on the word ''evidence'' as used in Order 47, Rule 1 Civil P.C. The Court could not confine it only to ''documentary'' evidence and exclude ''oral'' evidence. Whether or not the applicant could not with due diligence have discovered the evidence at the stage of the original trial must depend upon facts to be proved. But the Court below declined to hold any enquiry into the facts relevant to the discovery. Rule 4 is clear on this point. I think the Court below acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and, therefore, I must interfere in revision under Section 115(c), Civil P.C., I, therefore, remand the case for proper enquiry and disposal of the application for review on its merits.
2. As the record of the review proceedings-is missing and the Court-reader's explanation has not been recorded I direct that he be examined in the enquiry proceedings taken in connexion with the missing records, and if found negligent this matter must be reported to the District Judge for orders.
3. I may also point out that it was necessary for the enquiring officer to order the parties to file before him true copies of their respective application and pleadings written or oral as the case may be, and after having thus supplemented the record the Court ought to address itself to the decision of the question as to whether the grounds set forth for granting review were true and valid or not.
4. The application is allowed with costs. Pleader's fees Rs. 15.
Final Result : Allowed
