1939     Present: Soertsz J.

MAPALATHAN v. ELAYAVAN.

15-C. R. Point Pedro, 28,262. 

Revision or restitutio in integrum-Mistake in translation of a document- Decision in appeal-Materiality of error-Civil Procedure Code, s. 753- Courts Ordinance, ss. 19, 36, and 37 (Cap. 6).

The Supreme Court has no power to revise or review a case decided by itself.

Relief by way of restitution on the ground of Justus error will not be granted to a party who has failed to place before the Court matter, which was at his command, if reasonable diligence had been exercised.

In order to succeed in an application for restitution the petitioner must show that the fact was not merely material but of such vital and essential materiality that it must have altered the whole aspect of the case.

THIS was an application for restitutio in integrum or revision.

S. J. V. Chelvanayagam (with him A. Muttucumaru), for petitioners.

N. Nadarajah, for respondent.  

Cur adv vult. 

March 19, 1939. SOERTSZ J.-

In this matter the petitioners pray that by " way of restitutio in integrum or by way of revision", the judgment of this Court pronounced by de Kretser J. on May 31, 1938, be set aside and that the judgment of the Court of Requests dated September 30, 1937, be restored and affirmed.

This prayer is based on the allegation that my brother reached the conclusion he did, because the translation of document D 2 filed in the copy supplied to him at the argument of the appeal, led him to think that there were only two transferors on that deed, whereas, in point of fact, the original deed filed of record shows that there were four transferors. The implication of this allegation is that, but for this misapprehension of the effect of deed D 2 my brother must inevitably have reached a conclusion in favour of the petitioners. For it is only on that basis that the application can succeed if at all.

Before I examine the facts, I would point out that this application, in so far as it purports to be an application for the exercise of this Court's revisionary powers, cannot be entertained. I respectfully share the view taken by Withers J. in Loku Banda v. Assen [12 N. L. R. 311]. The combined effect of sections 19, 36, and 37 of the Courts and their Powers Ordinance and of section 753 of the Civil Procedure Code is to give the Supreme Court power to deal by way of revision with cases tried or pending trial in original Courts, and not with cases, decided by the Supreme Court itself.

Withers J. however, took the view that the Supreme Court could review its judgment passed in appeal. For this he relied on Ex parts Gordon re Gordon v. Assignees of Brodie & Co.'s estate [22 S. C. C. 108.]  That case was decided in 1879, ten years before the Civil Procedure Code. It takes for granted that in certain circumstances the Supreme Court has power to review its own judgment. 

In Thamotheram v. Hensman [14 Bal. 68 ], Wendt J. doubted this view of Withers J. and I venture to share that doubt. It is significan