This petition must be allowed. The learned District Judge has misinterpreted the expression strict proof in O. 47, R. 4 of Civil Procedure Code. It has been held in Ahid Khondkar v. Mahendra Lal De (42 Cal. 830) [LQ/CalHC/1915/124] and a number of other cases that this phrase does not refer to the sufficiency of proof, but only to the fact that formal proof is required derived from anything which may serve directly or indirectly to convince a Court and has been brought before the Court in legal form and in compliance with the requirements of the law of evidence. O. 19, R. 2 permits such proof to be given by affidavit.
The result of this misinterpretation of the expression strict proof by the learned District Judge has been that he has assumed a jurisdiction to hear this appeal which under O. 47, R. 7 he had not rightly got. The appellate decree will therefore be set aside and the order of the learned District Munsif granting the review be restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.
Peria Muthuswami Naicker v. Chidambaram Chettiar And Others
Peria Muthuswami Naicker v. Chidambaram Chettiar And Others
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Civil Revision Petition No. 1360 Of 1937 | 11-11-1938
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KING
Eq Citations
- AIR 1939 MAD 289
- LQ/MadHC/1938/411
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 47, R. 4 — Review — Jurisdiction to entertain review — Phrase ?strict proof? — Meaning of — Formal proof required under Or. 19, R. 2 — Proof by affidavit held sufficient — Appeal, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 47
