nath Ghose v. Shama Sundura Dossia, ib., C. ., XIV., 26. Where, owing to the conduct of the opposite party, an applicant for reveiw had no opportunity of showing that a new piece of evidence which he adduced was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by her when the decree was passed, such opposite party cannot afterwards be allowed to object on the ground of the Full Bench Ruling in 20 W. R., 84. Ram Jay Gupto v. Sreemutty Judodesuri, ib., XXII., 399.

A plaintiff who has obtained an incomplete decree can apply for and obtain a review on the grouud that he was entitled, upon the allegations and proofs on the record, to the full relief which he had sought, but it is not open to the defendant then to cite witnesses whom he ought to have cited at the trial. Bane Madhub Laha v. Shahzada Pakaktur, ib., XX., 225. Judges of the High Court admitting an ap

plication for review are competent to make a qualified order, leaving in the Court, which was to review the decision, a discretion as to the extent to which the review should he carried. Bhognandeen Doobey v. Myna Bace, 9 S. W. R., P. C', 23.

That there is a difference of opinion between

two decisions of the High Court on questions of fact is no reason why, on review, a reference to a Full Bench shall be made. W. Fergusson v. Government, 9 W. R., 158.

A suit to recover possession of an undivided share of a putree taluk, where the title to the share as against the zemindar depends upon a grant made to the plaintiff and others ijmalee, cannot rightly proceed until the co-sharers are made parties. Where a District Judge, as the lower Appellate Court, reviewed his predecessor's judgment and reversed his decision, and the High Court in special appeal saw no ground on which it could rightly disturb the judgment in question, it set aside the review and restored the judgment. Parbutty Charn Das v. Protab Chandar Sen, S. W. R., XXIII., 275.

The objection to the admission of a review of judgment on the strength of a new document was not allowed to prevail in a case where the so-called new document was not the sole reason for the admission of the review. Huro Gobind Pal v. Huro Sundri Chaudhrain, S. W. R., XVIII., 316.

A suit having been brought before a subordinate Judge against co-sharers in a joint property for contribution on account of costs levied from plaintiff's in a suit which had been preferred by all the co-sharers

(plaintiffs and defendants) together, a decree was given ordering the defendants to contribute per capita in equal shares. On application made to the subordinate Judge's successor a review was rightly granted, and additional evidence called for as to the respective shares of the parties in the property. Shaikh Murdan Ali v. Shaikh Tufussul Hossein, 16 S. W. R., C. R., 78.

In a suit for confirmation of title to a village alleged to be in the possession of plaintiff, under a makururee pattah, the first Court found the pattah to be genuine, and gave plaintiff a decree. The lower Appellate Court at first doubted the genuineness of the pattah and reversed that decision, but on an application for review admitted additional evidence on both sides and dismissed the appeal. This is wrong, as the Appellate Court ought not to have allowed points to be explained away in the review stage by admitting additional evidence thereon. Tekaet Khood Narain Singh v. Toolsey Roy, 15 S. W. R., 9.

(k) After the expiration of the period allowed by law for making an application for a review, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it, without just and reasonable ground, to the satisfaction of the Court, being assigned for the delay. Preferring an appeal is not a just and reasonable cause for not preferring an application for review.

Where the Court granted a review without any cause having been assigned for the delay, and varied its former decree, the High Court, reversing all that was done under the review, restored the former decree. Fakira v. Basapa Mahadan Shitti, Bom. H. C., R., VIII., 234. See also Sulimun Sing v. Shumsher Sing, M. I. R., S. A., I., 58.

Time for obtaining copies of judgments should not be allowed in applications for review. Fhabhoo Sahoo v. Musst. Fussodar Koer, 17 S. W. R., 230.

An application was filed for review of judg ment of three out of five analogous cases decided by the High Court, the judgment in two of which had been reversed by the Privy Council. The application was made after a lapse of more than ninety days from the date of judgment, but under the circumstances, the delay was not held a bar to the granting of the review. Satto Saran Ghosal Bahadur v. Tarni Charan Ghose, 3 B. L. R., A. C., 287. Where an application for review of an order in execution, made after ninety days from the order, was granted, simply on the ground that in the execution case of another person, upon the same decree, the decision, which apparently proceeded upon the same ground as the decision in this

case, had been reversed by the High Court, such order admitting the review was open to appeal and must be set aside. Roy Goodur Suhaye v. Achebur Lall, 13 S. W. R., 120.

A decision of the Privy Council in 1871, as to a question of fact in another suit, or the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, is no cause for not having preferred an application for review within ninety days from the date of the decree. Bolaka Lall v. Manjee Lall, 17 S. W. R., 163. An appeal lies from the order of a lower Court deciding what is just and reasonable cause for admitting an application for review after the prescribed period of ninety days have elapsed, and an Appellate Court has power to look at the reasonableness or sufficiency of the cause assigned for admitting such review. Shama Churan Chuckerbutty V. Bindabun Chunder Roy, S. W. R., IX., 187. A second application for review of judg ment can be admitted, although the first application has been rejected as founded on insufficient grounds. Fakeerooddeen v. Kalachund Sirvar, 1 W. R, 287. (1) When a case is admitted to review by the deciding Judge, and tried afterwards by another Judge, that new Judge ought to try only the point directed by the order of review. Hurro Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Ramkishore Chuckerbutty, W. R., 1864, 142.

A case should not be decided on the mere admission of an application for review of judgment. After the admission of the aplication for review, a day should be fixed and notified for the hearing of the case 80 admitted to be reviewed. Parbutty v. Khoobun, 3 W. R., 134. Where a defendant, in the presence of the mookhtears on both sides, gives evidence that no summons was served on him in a case leading to the ex-parte decree against him, the Court's order to

enter the case on the register or reviewer is a proper order admitting the review. Annund Moyee Dassee Chaudhrain v. Annund Soondur Mookerji, 13 S. W. R., 237.

Where, at the time of granting an application for review of judgment, the Court, proceeded to dispose of the whole matter' at once as on a re-hearing. Held, that so much of the order as granted the application for review was final and not open to appeal, but that so much of it as went to dispose of the case finally, as on a rehearing, was a distinct order and open to appeal. Ahmud Hossein Jan v. Shurbanund Tewari, 6 W. R., 301.

When a review of a decision has been admitted, the whole case is thereby reopened. Sainal Ranchhod v. Dullabh Duarka, Bom. H. C., X., 360.

When the decision of a lower Court is admitted to review, the suit becomes in all respects a new one, and its decision will be guided by precedents then in force,-e. 9., by a subsequent Full Bench ruling of the High Court containing an exposition of the law contrary to that which prevailed at the time when the decision sought to be reviewed was passed. Alladmonee Dassia v. Joy Sunkur Roy, S. W. R., VII., 408. Where a judge, who had ordered a certificate of guardianship to be granted under Act XL. of 1858, granted a review of his order on one point, Held, that he had no power to re-open another question which he had already decided finally, and on which no application for review was made. Baij Nath Sohoy v. Wazeer Narain, ib., XXIV., 427.

It is competent to the High Court, on an application for review, to delay their final decision until a doubtful question of law has been settled by a Full Bench. Nobokisto Mookerji v. Koylash Chunder Bhuttacharji, ib., XX., 459,

(1) Taking of evidence.

(2) Record of judgment and orders.