HARI SHANKAR versus RAO GIRDHARI LAL CHOWDHURY

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 05-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
933 
articles excluded from the schedule. 
Section 
11(6) which deals with reassessments at the relevant 
time provided : 
" If upon informa.tion which has come into 
his possession the Assessing Authorit,i: is 
satisfied. that any dealer has been liaOle to 
pay tax under this Act in respect of any 
period has failed to apply for registration, 
the Assessing Authority shall .......... assess to 
the best of his judgment the amount of 
tax ............ due from the dealer." 
The scheme of the Act and the rules made there· 
under do not, in my opinion, show that the 
exemption becomes operative for the whole year 
whenever during the year the notification of 
..,. 
exemption is issued even though it may be on the 
last day of the financial year. 
I would therefore dismiss this appeal wi~h 
costs. 
BY Couar. In accordance with the judgment 
of the majority, the appeal stands allowed with 
costs. 
HARISHANKAR 
v. 
RAO GIRDHARI LAL CHOWDHURY 
(B.P. SINHA, C. J., J.L. KAPUR, M.H!DAYA.TULLAH and 
J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Revision App/ico,tion-Ooncu"ent findings of the co11rts 
below-No provision in atature for second appeal-:-H igh court, 
if dould 
re-aaseaa 
the 
value 
of 
evidence-Distinction 
between appeal and revision-Delhi di Ajmer Rent Control Act, 
1952-(38 of 1952), sa, 34, 36 (1). 
In an ejcctment suit under the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Con•· 
trol Act, 1952, the trial Judge decreed the 1uit and on appeal 
under s.34 of the Act the Additional District Judge confimied 
1961 
M/s. Mathra 
l'rashad 
"· 
Stat1 of Punjab 
Kapur J. 
1111 
D.....ml 
19~1 
Bari Shankar 
v. 
Rao Girtiluui Lal 
Chowdh1Uy 
9a4 SUPREME COURT REPO.R'fS [1962] SUP}>. 
the decision. 
The Act 
did not provide 
for a 
second 
appeal, and under s. 35 (I) a revision was filed against the 
Order of the Additionaf District Judge. The single Judge 
of. the Punjab High Court following a previous dcci,ion of the 
same High Court, was of opinion that in assessment as all the 
evidence was not considered 
i~ was competent for him to 
reconsider tlie concurrent findings of the courts below. 
. 
. 
The ..question is whether the High Court in exercise of 
its revisional powers is entitled ,to ·re-assess the value of the 
evldence and to substitute i~s o;-yh cou~lusions of facts iii place 
of those reached by the courts below. 
Held, (per ,Sinha, C.]., Hidayatullah and Shah, JJ, that 
though s. 35 cif the Delhi' and Ajn\er Rent Control Act is 
worded in general terms, 
but~ it ,..does not create a right to 
have the case re-heard: 
The distinction between ap. appeal.and revision is a real 
one. A fight to app~al carries with it right of re-hearing 
on law as well as fact, unltss the statute conferring the right 
to appeal ~imits the re-hearing in scime way. The power 
to hear a rcvision .. is~ generallyv given to a superior court so 
thaJ.)it may satisfy, itself tha; a particular case decided accord-
ingYto law. The phrase ''according t to law" in s. 35 of the 
Act refers to the decision as a whole, and is not tq be eqUated 
to e,rror~ of law or of fact simplicitor. All that the .High Court 
can see is that these has been no mis'Carriage of justice and that 
the decision is according to 18.w in the sense meiltioned. 
per Kapur,J.-The power under s. 35 (I) of the Act of 
interference by the High Court, is not restricted to a proper 
trial according to Jaw or error in regard to onus of proof or 
prop~r opportunity of being heard. It is very much wider than 
that when in the opinion Of, the .High Court the decision is 
erroneous on a question of law which affects 
the merits of 
the case or deciliion is manifestly unjust the High Court is 
entitled to interfere. 
Bell and Oo. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj (1938) 40 Bom. LR. 
·125 approved. 
C1vIL APPELLATE JurusnroTroN: Civil Appeal 
No. 94 of 1959. 
• 
Appeal by speciaJ leave from the judgment 
and decree dated May 7, 1957, of the Punjab High 
Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Revision 
Application No. 144-D of 1957. 
,BiBhanNarain R. M~halingier and B. 0. Misra, 
for the appellants. 
• 
• 
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
935 
Gurbachan Singh and Harbans Singh, for the 
respondent. 
1961. December 5. The Judgment of Sinha, 
C.J., Hirlayatullah and Shah, JJ., was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. Kapnr, J. delivered a separate 
judgment. 
,961 
H ari Shankar 
•• 
Rao Girdhari Lil 
Chowdiw•y 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The appellants (in this 
Hidayalu/lali J, 
appeal by special leave) are the sons of on

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.