Abdul Sattar and Others vs Shan Taveeappa Dundappa and Others

In this Civil Petition seeking review of the order made by me on 29th July, 1982, the petitioner has sought for the recall of that order and re-hear the regular second appeal which was dismissed as one not involving any substantial question of law which was required to be decided by this Court under S. 100 of CPC. As is apparent from the order the only argument advanced before me was that the matter should have been remitted to the trial Court for decision in the light of the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court on the question formulated by it and should not have been disposed of by the lower appellate Court. That argument was negatived having regard to the wide powers conferred on the appellate Court in terms of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure.

What is now sought to be argued by Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner who was defendant in in the Court of first instance is that the lower appellate Court erred in construing the document involved in the suit as a deed of mortgage. In otherwords, the construction of document is sought to be put forward as a pure question of law which was never argued on the earlier occasion, namely, on 29th July, 1982.

I do not think review of such a thing is permissible. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the contention because the scope for review is limited. Merely because another Counsel has found a plausible argument to advance is not a ground for review.

Therefore, the Civil Petition is dismissed.