Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Replying to the aforesaid submissions raised, learned Standing Counsel for the State contends that the this is a power which is inherent in every authority to review in case new facts have been brought to the notice of the authority and which run counter to the evidence that was earlier led. He contends that the petitioners were not the sons of Janardan Singh and that this new fact came to the notice of the Prescribed Authority, therefore, it was always open to him to reopen the entire dispute in order to decide it afresh on the basis of evidence received. He contends that this is within the general powers of the Prescribed Authority under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., hence, no error has been committed by the Prescribed Authority to proceed to decide the same issue again. He submits that neither the judgment and decree of partition dated 29th March, 1971 is binding nor any finding arrived at in the earlier proceedings will operate as res-judicata in the background of the present case. The contention therefore is that neither the order of the Prescribed Authority nor the order of the appellate authority requires any interference by this Court as on facts it has been found that the petitioners are not the sons of Janardan Singh but of Sheo Bali Singh.