AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ross, J.—A preliminary objection is taken to this application on the ground that an appeal has been made to the Privy Council and, therefore, the application for review cannot be entertained. This question was considered in Chenna Reddi v. Pedda Obi Reddi 2 Ind. Cas. 802 : 32 M. 416 : 19 M.L.J. 388 : 9 M.L.T. 135 and Pyari Mohan Kundu v. Kalu Khan 41 Ind. Gas. 497 : 44 C. 1011, and it was held that the Court has power and in fact is bound to proceed with the application for review of judgment notwithstanding the fast that an appeal has been subsequently filed. The petitioner asks for a modification of the judgment on two points. It was directed that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants towards the amount due to them as capital Rs. 24,345 in cash, if there was cash in hand to that amount and, if not, in cash and house property. It is stated that there is not cash available to that amount and the petitioner desires a direction that instead of house property being made over to the opposite party to make up the balance due, cash according to the valuation of the house property referred to in the earlier part of the judgment should be paid.
The second point is that in the subsequent direction for the distribution of the remaining assets in the proportion of 10 to 6, there should be a further direction that instead of house property being delivered as against the share of the opposite party, the equivalent according to the above-mentioned valuation should be delivered in cash. All this was a matter for argument at the time of hearing of the appeal, and as it was not acceded to then, I see no reason now to vary the order that was passed.
We, therefore, dismiss the application for review and we do so with the less anxiety because an appeal to the Privy Council is pending and if there has bean any error here, the matter can be set right.
The opposite party will get costs of this application, two gold mohurs.
Das, J.
I agree.