Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.79 seconds)
State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Manabendra Das Chowdhury on 22 June, 2001 cites

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963

6. Again in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Anantapur reported in AIR 1964 SC, 1372 the Apex Court held that even a case Involving any substantial question of law may not necessarily be an "error apparent on the face of the record". The Apex Court further held that the fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of fact arose would not per se be conclusive for, the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Thus, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record," for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision "and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent." The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been followed consistently by the court in its subsequent decisions. The grounds of review as disclosed in Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In the aforesaid decision it has been held that the third ground i.e. "many other sufficient reason" must be one which is analogous to an error on the face of record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 784 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi vs Parath Nath on 20 July, 1934

It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". This conclusion was reiterated by the Judicial Committee in -'Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath, AIR 1934 PC 213 (E) and was adopted by our Federal Court in - Hari Sankarv. Anath Nath, AIR 1949 FO 106 at pp. 110, 11 (F). Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal recognises the aforesaid limitations and submits that his case conies within the ground of "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" or same ground analogous thereto."
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - Full Document
1