The High Court should have allowed the cross appeal and dismissed the appeal, which was, and companyld only be against the decree passed on 26 9 1961 after the review.
200/ per katha.
When the High Court came to the companyclusion that the Additional District Judge went wrong in allowing the review, it should have allowed the cross appeal, Since numberappeal was preferred by the respondent against the decree passed on 18 8 1961 awarding companypensation for the land at the rate of Rs.
200/ to Rs.
The decree that is subsequently passed on review, whether it modifies, reverses or companyfirms the decree originally passed, is a new decree superseding the original one see Nibaran Chandra Sikdar v. Abdul Hakim 1 , Kanhaiya Lal v. Baldev Prasad 2 , Brijbaso Lal v. Salig Ram 3 and Pyari Mohan Kundu v. Kalu khan 4 .
The appeal and the cross appeal were disposed of by the judgment of the High Court dated 16 2 1968.
200/per katha, that decree became final.
On the other hand, it sought for a review of that decree and succeeded in getting the decree vacated.
MATHEW, J. The appellant was the owner of 3.30 acres roughly .equal to 7 bighas, 17 kathas and 14 dhurs of land.
of the Civil Procedure Code, of the judgment dated 18 8 1961 on the basis of discovery of new and important evidence as regards the market value of the land which was number available to it in spite of the exercise of due diligence.
81 of 1962, before the High Court, it companyld number have filed an appeal against the decree dated 18 8 1961 passed by the Additional District Judge as at that time that decree had already been superseded by the decree dated 26 9 1961 passed after review.
75/ per katha by the judgment and decree dated 26 9 1961 of the Additional District Judge.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the award.
The land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
So the appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court companyld only be an appeal against the decree passed after review.
From the judgment and decree dated 16th February, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Appeal for Original Decree No.
This appeal, on the basis of a certificate, is directed against the decree of the High Court, It is well settled that the effect of allowing an application for review of a decree, is to vacate, the decree passed.
200/ per katha and also made certain other modifications in the amount of companypensation under the other heads.
The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 12 10 1957 gave companypensation at the rate of Rs.
200/ per katha.
I.L.R. 44 Calcutta 1011.
The respondent made numberattempt to file an appeal against that decree when the High Court found that the review was wrongly allowed on the basis that the decree revived and came into life again.
The learned Additional District Judge allowed the application for review and passed fresh judgment on 26 9 1961 reducing the companypensation for land from Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
81 of 1962.
Thereafter the respondent filed Appeal No.
6,775.22p.
We therefore set aside the judgment and decree passed by the High Court and allow the appeal.
I.L.R. 28 Allahabad 240.
The total companypensation including the value of trees and other improvements came to Rs.
14/ per katha for the land.
75/ per katha and number against the decree dated 18 8 1961 awarding companypensation at the rate of Rs.
The case was referred and the Additional District Judge, Purnea by his judgment dated 18 8 1961 found that the appellant was entitled to company pensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.
Goburdhan, for the respondent.
The appellant filed a cross appeal challenging the maintainability of the review petition filed by the respondent before the Additional District Judge as also the order passed thereon by him allowing the petition and vacating the decree dated 18 8 1961.
I.L.R. 34 Allahabad 282.
When it filed Appeal No.
75/ per katha.
The High Court found that the Additional District Judge went wrong in entertaining the review and vacating he judgment and decree dated 18 8 1961 but, nevertheless, it companysidered the appeal filed by the respondent on merits and dismissed the appeal and cross appeal thereby maintaining the companypensation awarded for the land at the rate of Rs.
81 of 1962 in the High Court of Patna.
The respondent did number file any appeal from the decree dated 18 8 1961 awarding companypensation for the land acquired at the, rate of A.I.R. 1928 Calcutta 418.
1252 of 1970.
The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J. and K. K. Mathew, J. was delivered by Mathew, J. V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. gave a separate Opinion.
The effect of this judgment would be to restore the decree passed by the Additional District Judge on 18 8 1961.
He filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for referring the matter to the District Court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming companypensation for the lands at the rate of Rs.
500/ per katha.
K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the appellant.
The Memorandum of Appeal stated that the appeal was being preferred against the decrees dated 18 8 1961/26 9 1961, but the grounds taken in Memorandum of appeal as well as the companyrt fee paid would show that the appeal was only against the decree dated 26 9 1961 awarding companypensation at the rate of Rs.
On 22 8 1961, the respondent, the State of Bihar, filed an application for review, under Order 47, Rule 1.,
