Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a District Judge has power to review an order passed under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863, and whether such power can be derived from the Code of Civil Procedure or from any inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
Analysis: The Act contains no express provision for review. Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to regulate procedure in civil jurisdiction matters, but not to create a substantive right of appeal or review. The cases recognising review were treated as limited exceptions where earlier proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction, were set aside for inadvertence, or were vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The general rule applied was that a Court cannot review its own decision unless the statute expressly authorises it, and a review is in substance akin to an appeal by the same authority.
Conclusion: A District Judge has no inherent or procedural power to review an order passed under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863 in the absence of statutory authority.
Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the refusal to review was upheld on the ground that no statutory power of review existed for the order in question.
Ratio Decidendi: Review is not an inherent power of a court or judicial officer and can be exercised only when expressly conferred by statute.