PART VIII.

CHAPTER XLVII.

OF REVIEW OF JUDGMENT.

The word review' ordinarily denotes the act of seeing again, reconsidering, amending, altering, or correcting. According to Wharton to review' is to consider as a court of appeal.

The object of a bill of review' in Chancery is to procure an examination and reversal of a decree, made upon a former bill, and signed by the person holding the great seal and inrolled. It may be brought upon error of law appearing in the body of the decree itself, or upon discovery of new matter.

"It must be borne in mind that a review is perfectly distinct from an appeal; it is quite clear from the Regulations (and the same remark applies to this Act) that the primary intention of granting a review was a consideration of the same subject by the same Judge, as contra-distinguished to an appeal, which is a hearing before another tribunal. We do not say that there might not be cases in which a review might take place before another and a different Judge, because death or some other unexpected and unavoidable cause might prevent the Judge who made the decision from reviewing it; but we do say that such exceptions are allowable only ex necessitate." Maharajah Mohesh Singh v. The Bengal Government, 7 Moores I. A., 304.

With regard to the extent of the power of the courts to review their judgments, it seems that practically that power has been held to be almost unlimited. And where a Judge, without any new evidence, reviewed his predecessors (apparently) satisfactory and conclusive judgment on the facts, it was held that, though there was here an abuse of the power to review, nothing could be done to remedy the abuse. Sheikh Gholam Hossein v. Okhoy Koomar Ghose,

3 Suth. W. R., Act X Rul., 169. And see Gurumúrtti Náyudu v. Páppá Náyudu, 1 H. C. R., 164. But where there is good and sufficient reason, and a review is applied for in time, a judge may very properly review his predecessors judgment. Mussamut Mantoora v. Ablak Roy and others, 11 Suth. W. R., 196; Aman Ali Chowdhry v. Budeehur Ruhman, 3 Wym. Rep., 30; S. C., 6 Suth. W. R., 316.

Application for review of judgment.

623. Any person considering himself aggrieved

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is hereby allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed; or

(c) by a judgment on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him,

may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, or to the Court, if any, to which the business of the former Court has been transferred.

A party who is not appealing from a decree may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party, except when the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being a respondent, he can present to the appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

good and sufficient reason same for a review; as, for

Sufficient reason-What will be a for an appeal, will not necessarily be the example, that the lower court decided the case against the weight of evidence. Museroodeen Khan v. Inder Naryan Chowdry, 1 In. Jur., N. S., F. B., 147. The omission of a court to take into consideration a material issue is a sufficient ground to admit an application for review of judgment. Bihari Lal Nandi v. Srimati Trailackomayi Barmani, 3 B. L. R., A. C., 346; S. C., 12 W. R., 223. An error on a point of law is a ground for a review of judgment. Koh Poh v. Moung Tay and others, 10 W. R., 143.

To the Court which.-Not to any other court.

A judge cannot, by transferring a case to his own file, confer on himself the power to review an order of dismissal pronounced by a Principal Sudder Ameen. Golam Esha v. Hurrish Chunder Mookerjee, W. R. 1864, Mis., 29.

624. Except upon the ground of the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as aforesaid, or of some cleri

To whom applications for review may

be made.

cal error apparent on the face of the decree, no application for a review of judgment, other than that of a High Court, shall be made to any Judge other than

the Judge who delivered it.

This important restriction is new.

625. The rules hereinbefore contained as to the form of making appeals shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications for review.

626. If it appear to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application.

opinion that the application for the review should be granted, it shall grant the same, and the Judge shall record with his own hand his reasons for such opinion:

Provided that

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree a review of which is applied for; and

(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter, or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed, without strict proof of such allegation.

The words 'a review' in this section mean not two reviews or three reviews, but one review. A court has no jurisdiction to grant a second review of judgment on the application of the same party. Vencama Shetty v. Pamoo Shetty, 5 H. C. R., 323. And see Sec. 629.

Shall grant the same. These words make it obligatory on the courts to grant a review, when the case arises.

627. If the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges, who passed the decree or order, a review of which is applied for, conApplication for retinues or continue attached to the Court at the time view in Court consist when the application for a review is presented and is ing of two or more not or are not precluded by absence or other cause, Judges. for a period of six months next after the application, from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same.

Application when

rejected.

628. If the application for a review be heard by more than one Judge and the Court be equally divided, the application shall be rejected.

If there be a majority the decision shall be according to the opinion of the majority.

629. An order of the Court for rejecting the application shall be final; but whenever such application is admitted, the admission may be objected to on the ground that it was

(a) in contravention of the provisions of section 624,

(b) in contravention of the provisions of section 626, or

(c) after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed therefor and without sufficient cause.

Such objection may be made at once by an appeal against the order granting the application, or may be taken in any appeal against the final decree or order made in the suit.

Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and if it be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court may order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.

No order shall be made under this section unless the applicant has served the opposite party with notice in writing of the latter application.

No application to review an order passed on review or on an application for a review shall be entertained.

Registry of application granted, and order for re-hearing.

630. When an application for a review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re-hear the case or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit.

Or make such order.-Where the application has been granted ex parte, no doubt the re-hearing should not be at once. And in most cases, I should imagine, it will be convenient to fix a day for the re-hearing.

The courts will be careful not to review a decree or order immediately after granting the application for review. Parbutti v. Khoobun, 3 W. R., 134.

PART IX.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO THE CHARTERED
HIGH COURTS.

This chapter to apply only to certain High

Courts.

Application of Code to High Courts.

High Court to record judgments according to its own rules.

Power to order execution of decree before ascertainment of costs, and execution for costs subsequently.

631. This chapter applies only to High Courts which are or may hereafter be established under the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of Victoria, chapter 104 (An Act for establishing High Courts of Judicature in India).

632. Except as provided in this chapter the provisions of this Code apply to such High Courts.

633. The High Court shall take evidence, and record judgments and orders in such manner as it by rule from time to time directs.

634. Whenever a High Court considers it necessary that a decree made in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction should be enforced before the amount of the costs incurred in the suit can be ascertained by taxation, the Court may order that the decree shall be executed forthwith, except as to so much thereof as relates to the costs;

and, as to so much thereof as relates to the costs, that the decree may be executed as soon as the amount of the costs shall be ascertained by taxation.

sons not to address Court.

635. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to authorize any person on behalf of another to address the Court in the exercise Unauthorized per- of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction or to examine witnesses, except when the Court shall have in the exercise of the power conferred by its charter authorized him so to do, or to interfere with the power of the High Court to make rules concerning advocates, vakíls and attorneys.

636. Notices to produce documents, summonses to witnesses, and every other judicial process, issued in the exercise of the Who may serve ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction Porcess of High of the High Court, and of its matrimonial, testamentCourts. ary and intestate jurisdictions, except summonses to defendants issued under section 64, writs of execution, and notices under section 553, may be served by the attorneys in the suit, or by persons employed by them, or by such other persons as the High Court by any rule or order from time to time directs.

Non-judicial acts may be done by Registrar.

637. Any non-judicial or quasi-judicial act which this Code requires to be done by a Judge, and any act which may be done by a Commissioner appointed to examine and adjust accounts under section 394, may be done by the Registrar of the Court or by such other officer of the Court as the Court may direct to do such act.