please help understand CPC O47 R 1(c) r/w R 4(2)(b)
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 28 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
CPC O47 R 1(c) talks about 'grounds' applicable to apply for a review of an Oder or decree.
Three grounds as:::
1. discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence
I. was not within his knowledge
II. or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made,
2. or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
3. or for any other sufficient reason
These above three are 'grounds', which a review-applicant 'alleges' about.
CPC O47 R 4(2)(b)also uses word 'ground' as follows.
"....on the 'ground' of discovery of.... which the applicant alleges .... without strict proof of such allegation"
So shouldn't it mean that strict proof is required only for 'discovery of new matter or evidence'?
'New' is relating to something which isn't on the record/exhibits.
there is no problem to understand meaning of 'not within the knowledge'
But shouldn't it mean that it should suffice to admit in pleadiing that 'irrespective of due diligence Review-Applicant couldn't adduce the evidence although known to him, before the order was passed'?
shouldn't it mean that requirement of 'strict proof' doesn't apply to process of 'due diligence in collecting evidence'?
Please me sort out my doubt.
Regards
