The Court that made the order admitting the review can allow the applicant to enlarge his grounds in the oral application if satisfied that there is a proper case on the merits for so doing.-Bhugwandeen Doobey vs. Myna Baee, 11 Moore, 498; (but see Byjnath Sahoy vs. Wazeer Narain, 24 W. R., 427; it was there decided that a Court could not give a fresh decision on a point decided, and on which no application has been made). The Court in short possesses a discretion as to the extent to which the review should be carried. In each case it must consider whether a review is necessary to correct any error or omission, or is otherwise requisite for the ends of justice, and there is no such rule as that no point can be raised on review which has already been discussed and decided in the original hearing, or that no new point which has not been raised at the hearing of the appeal can be argued on the application for review.-Chinta Monee Paul vs. Pearee Mohun Mookerjee, 15 W. R., F. B., 1. But although an applicant is not debarred from asking a rehearing of the same matter, he cannot claim the indulgence as of rsght, and it lies on him to show some good ground for the indulgence asked for-Huree Pershad Mundul vs. Baboo Nund Kishun Singh, 17 W. R., 479. As a review re-opens the case, an appeal lies and limitation runs from the final order on review-Roop Kalee Kooer vs. Doolar Pandey, 20 W. R., 101; Ahmed Hossein vs. Mussamut_Bundhoo, 13 W. R., 139; Bulobhuddur Mahantee vs. Mudhoosoodun Pandey, 23 W. R., 433; but if the application has been rejected and not admitted, time runs from the original decree, though probably the existence of an apylication for review would be looked upon as sufficient reason for not appealing sooner. A applied for a review, the application was set down for argument and rejected. A subsequently within six months of the final orders, but more than six months from the date of the decree, applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council; it was refused. Peacock, C. J., said:" If a review is admitted then under section 380 the case is set down to be reheard and the order of the Division Bench upon the rehearing is a new decree, whatever may be the result of the rehearing. But as it is, the Court merely rejected an application to review their own judgment; and that rejection is not an order made on appeal. Consequently the Court is not in a position to admit an appeal against that order. It cannot admit an appeal against the orignal judgment of the Division Bench, inasmuch as the petition of appeal was not presented within the period of six months prescribed by the rules of Her Majesty in Council."-Soudaminée Dossee vs. Moharaja Dheraj Mohatab Chand Bahadoor, Ben,, F. B. R., 586.

Where a party obtained a review on the ground that upon the record he was entitled to the full relief which he sought, the other side was not allowed to adduce new evidence-Banee Madhub Laha vs. Shahjada Pakaktur, 20 W. R., 225.

Where a review was granted for the purpose of seeing whether a chitta ought to be admitted and the case was remanded for rehearing, it was held that it was too late to object to the admission of the chitta in appeal from the judgment passed on the rehearing-Mukhun Kooer vs. Tincowree Dutt, 14 W. R., 22.

Final order.-If the Judge on review modifies or alters the original order, even the rectification of a clerical mistake, the modified order become the final order or the case, from which limitation runs. Reviews for clerical mistakes should therefore be dismissed with leave to apply under section 206, ante-Joykishen vs. Ataoor Rahman, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 22.

PART IX.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO THE CHARTERED HIGH Courts,

This chapter to apply only to certain High Courts.

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.

Aplication of Code to High

Courts,

633 The

High Court to record

judgments according to its own rules.

Power to order execution

of decree before ascertainment of costs, and

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

execution for costs subsequently.

by taxation.

Unauthorized person not to address Court.

635. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to authorize any person on behalf of another to aadress the Court in the exercise 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, vakils and attorneys.

Who may serve proces of High Courts.

636. Notices to produce documents, summonses to witnesses, and every other judical process, issued in the exercise of the ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court, and of its matrimonial, testamentary 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 end 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,

The High Court may, from time to time, by rule declare what shall be deemed to be non-judicial and quasi-judicial acts within the meaning of this section.

Sections not applying to

civil jurisdiction.

638. The following portions of this Code shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its High Court in original ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction, namely, sections 16, 17 and 19, sections 54, clauses (a) and (b), 57, 119, 160, 182 to 185 (both inclusive), 187, 189, 190, 191 192 (so far as relates to the manner of taking evidence,) 198 to 206 (both inclusive), and so much of section 409 as relates to the making of a memorandum;

and section 579 shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Code not to affect High Court in exercise of insolvent jurisdiction.

Court.

639.

Nothing in this Code shall extend or apply to any Judge of a High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction as an insolvent

The High Court may, from time to time, frame forms for any proceeding in such Court, and may make rules as to the books, entries and accounts to be kept by its officers.

Power to frame forms.

Ꮲ Ꭺ Ꭱ Ꭲ X.

CHAPTER XLIX.

MISCELLANEOUS.

640. Women, who according to the customs and manners of the country ought not to be compelled to appear in public, shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court.

Exemption of certain wo

men from personal appear

ance.

But nothing

herein contained shall be deemed to exempt such women from arrest in execution of civil process.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

An unmarried girl of 12 years of age, is a woman-Mainath Sing vs. Mussamut Mootra Kooer, 24 W. K., 375. The privilege is limited to the class of persons described in this section-women who according to the custom and manners of the country ought not to be compelled to appear in public. It cannot be claimed by all women of rank-Davis vs. Middleton, 8 W. R., 282; but out of respect to the customs of this country the invariable practice has been to allow respectable females, who are not accustomed to appear generally before the public, to be examined in their palkisKistomohun Mookerjee vs. S. M. Adarmoney Dabee, 2 Hyde, 88; 1 Ben., Š. N. V. See also Zohurutoollah Chowdhry vs. Asaloodeen Chowdhry, 15 W. R., 129.

There is no appeal from an order refusing to summon a person under this section-Bibee Solendra vs. Roy Kaliha Sahoy, W. R., 1864, Mis., 23,

641. The Local Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt from personal appearance in Court any person whose rank, in the opinion of such Government, entitles him to the privilege of exemption, and may, by like notification, withdraw such privilege.

Local Government may exempt certain persons from personal appearance.

List of names of persons exempted to be kept in subordinate Court.

The names and residences of the persons so exempted shall, from time to time, be forwarded to the High Court by the Local Government, and a list of such persons shall be kept in such Court, and a list of such persons as reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of each Court subordinate to the High Court shall be kept in such subordinate Court. When any person so exempted claims the privilege of such exemption, and it is consequently necessary to examine him by commission, he shall pay the costs of that commission, unless the party requiring his evidence pays such costs. This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Costs of commission rendered necessary by claiming privilege.

The exemption is absolute, and not limited to cases in which the party claiming it has been summoned by the opposite party. A Rajah instituted a suit under Act X of 1859, through an agent appointed in that behalf. The Deputy Collector not being satisfied with the information which the agent could give, adjourned the hearing to a subsequent day, and required the personal appearance of the Rajah. The Rajah claimed to be exempted; but the Deputy Collector refused the application and dismissed the case. It was held that the Rajah was not bound to attend, and the suit was wrongly dismissed-Maharajah Jaggut Inder Bunware Gobind De3 Bahadoor vs. Soarjcoomar Chowdhree, Marsh., 627.

642. No Judge, Magistrate or other judicial officer shall be liable to arrest under this Code, while going to, presiding in, or returning from,

Person exempt from

arrest.

his Court.

And, except as provided in sections 256 and 643, where any matter is pending before a tribunal having jurisdiction therein, or relieving in good faith that it has such jurisdiction the parties thereto, their pleaders, mukhtars, revenue-agents, and recognized agents and their witnesses acting in obedience to a summons, shall be exempt from arrest under Civil process. while going to or attending such tribunal for the purpose of such matter, and while returning from such tribunal.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Compare The Empress of India vs. Harath Nath Sing, I. L. R., 4 All., 27, with the present law. See also 2 Taylor, 1155; 2 Taylor and Bell, 234.

The privilege granted to witnesses is not for the personal benefit of the individual but for the furthering of the public interests and the better administration of justice. And if there is not a band fide belief that his attendance was required he has no privilege-Wooma Churn Dhole vs. Teil, 14 Ben., Ap., 13.

In the case of John vs. Carter, 4 Ben. O., 91, the defendant, Carter, while proceeding to Court to hear his case was arrested under a contempt issued against him in the suit, and it was decided that he had no privilege.

But in a suit under chapter XXXIX where the defendant is not allowed to defend without obtaining lease, a defendant appearing in Court for that purpose is privileged-In the matter of Soorendro Nath Roy, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 106; and where plaintiff a resident of Bengal went to Madras on the 24th of October to attend a case which was adjourned for seven weeks on the 27th of October, and he was arrested on the 10 of November. Held, he was privileged-In the metter of Siva Bux, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 317.

The Small Cause Court of Calcutta is a Court of inferior jurisdiction. Where a prisoner was brought up to the High Court on a writ of habeas corpus, and the return of the jailor stated that the prisoner was detained under a warrant of the Small Cause Court, it was held that the prisoner was entitled to go behind the return and show that he was exempted from arrest at the time he was taken into custody-In the matter of Omrito Lall Dey, 1 Ind., Cal., 78; in the matter of Juggessur Roy, 5 C. L. R., 170,

Procedure in case of certain offences.

643. When in a case pending before any Court, there the Court sufficient ground appears to for sending for investigation to the Magistrate a charge of any such offence as is described in section 193, section 196, section 199, section 200, section 205, section 206, section 207, section 208, section 209, section 210, section 463, section 471, section 474, section 475, section 476 or section 477 of the Indian Penal Code, which may be made in the course of any other suit or proceeding, or with respect to any document offered in evidence in the case, the Court may cause the person accused to be detained till the rising of the Court, and may then send him in custody to the Magistrate, or take sufficient bail for his appearance before the Magistrate.

The Court shall send to the Magistrate the evidence and documents relevant to the charge, and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

The Magistrate shall receive such charge and proceed with it according to law.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Apparently the case must be pending,—if it has been decided no action can be taken under this section,-and even then the Courts should only refer when they have come to some conclusion in respect of the guilt of the parties or the genuine ness of the document, as the case may be - Hurronath Roy, petitioner, 7 W. R., 482. There is no appeal from an order passed under this section.

Use of forms in fourth schedule,

644. Subject to the power conferred on the High Court by section 639,and by the twentyfourth and twenty-fifth of Victoria, chapter 104, section 15, the forms set forth in the fourth schedule hereto annexed, with such variation as the circumstances of each case require, shall be used for the respective purposes therein mentioned.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.