မောင်လှပါ၂ နှင့် ဒေါ်မမလေး(၎င်း၏တရားဝင်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်မောင်ကိုကြီး၊၁၉၆၆၊မတစ၊စာ-၄၆၀စီရင်ထုံးပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ။
ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ
မောင်လှပါ၂
နှင့်
ဒေါ်မမလေး(၎င်း၏တရားဝင်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်မောင်ကိုကြီး)
၁၉၆၆ခုနှစ်၊မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတရားစီရင်ထုံး၊စာ-၄၆၀ပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ
—————————————————
1966 BLR 460
မောင်လှပါ၂
နှင့်
ဒေါ်မမလေး(၎င်း၏တရားဝင်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်မောင်ကိုကြီး)
တရားသူကြီးဦးချစ်ရှေ့တွင်
အမှုတွင်၊အောက်ရုံးနှစ်ရုံးစလုံးကအကြောင်းခြင်းရာပေါ်တွင်သော်၎င်း၊ဥပဒေအချက်အလက်များပေါ်တွင်သော်၎င်း၊တသဘောတည်းချမှတ်ထားသောအမိန့်ကို၊ဒုတိယအယူခံရုံးအနေဖြင့်ဝင်ရောက်စွက်ဖက်ရန်အကြောင်းမရှိပေ။ထိုကဲ့သို့တသဘောတည်းချမှတ်ခဲ့သောအမိန့်မှာအလွန့်အလွန်မှားယွင်းပြီးတရားမျှတမှုလွန်စွာကင်းမဲ့နေမှသာလျှင်၊ဤရုံးက ဝင်ရောက်စွက်ဖက်နိုင်သည်ဟုဆုံးဖြတ်ထားသည်။
မောင်လှစီရင်ထုံးသည်-
MA PYU v. K. C. MITRA.
Indian Law Reports ( Rangoon Series )
Volume 6 , Page 586 ( 590 )
စီရင်ထုံးပါ
[ Under the provisions of ss.100, 101, second appeals lie only if the decision is contrary to law or if the decision fails to determine some material issue of law or if there is any substantial error or defect in the procedure.
S. 100 says nothing about the findings of facts, concurrent or otherwise, and therefore the findings of the first Appellate Court upon a question of fact is final, if that Court had before it evidence in support of the findings, however unsatisfactory it might be if examined. ]
ဟူသောလမ်းညွှန်ချက်ကို၊ကိုးကားထားခြင်းဖြစ်သည်ကိုလေ့လာတွေ့ရှိနိုင်သည်။
သို့ဖြစ်ရာ၊မဖြူစီရင်ထုံးသည်တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၀၀အရတက်ရောက်သောဒုတိယအယူခံမှုနှင့်ပတ်သက်၍ဆုံးဖြတ်ခဲ့သောစီရင်ထုံးဖြစ်သည်။
မဖြူစီရင်ထုံးတွင်အောက်ရုံးနှစ်ရုံးစလုံးကအကြောင်းခြင်းရာပေါ်တွင်သော်၎င်း၊ဥပဒေအချက်အလက်များပေါ်တွင်သော်၎င်း၊တသဘောတည်းချမှတ်ထားသောအမိန့်ကိုဒုတိယအယူခံရုံးအနေဖြင့်ဝင်ရောက်စွက်ဖက်ရန်အကြောင်းမရှိကြောင်းဆုံးဖြတ်ခဲ့ခြင်းမရှိပါဘဲလျက်မောင်လှစီရင်ထုံးတွင်ထိုအချက်ကိုဆုံးဖြတ်ခဲ့ခြင်းမှာ၊မိမိကိုးကားသည့်မဖြူစီရင်ထုံးနှင့်ညီညွတ်ခြင်းမရှိသည်ကိုတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်။
————————————————
A. I. R. 1928 Rangoon 303
MA PYU v. K. C. MITRA
Baguley, J.
————————————
6 Ran 586
MA PYU v. K. C. MITRA.*
Before Mr. Justice Baguley
အမှုတွင်တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၁၀၀သည်အကြောင်းခြင်းရာနှင့်စပ်လျဉ်းပြီးတသဘောတည်းဖြစ်စေ၊အခြားနည်းဖြစ်စေကောက်ယူဆုံးဖြတ်ခြင်းအကြောင်းဘာမျှမဆို။
သို့ဖြစ်ရာပထမအယူခံရုံးရှိအကြောင်းခြင်းရာဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်သည်သက်သေခံအထောက်အထားရှိနေလျှင်ထိုဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်မှာစိတ်ကျေနပ်ဖွယ်မရှိလင့်ကစားပထမအယူခံတရားရုံး၏အကြောင်းခြင်းရာဆိုင်ရာဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်သည်အပြီးသတ်ဖြစ်သည်ဟုစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၅၈၇၊၅၈၈နှင့်၅၈၉တွင်ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၏စီရင်ထုံးသုံးရပ်ကိုရည်ညွှန်းကိုးကား၍၊တရားသူကြီး Mr. Justice Baguley ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-
[ The memorandum of appeal is based to a great extent on questions of fact.
I pointed out to Mr.Doctor that in my opinion findings of fact in the lower Appellate Court must be regarded as final.
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is quite clear and section 100 does not mention the word"facts".
Section 101 says that no second appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in section 100.
It was argued that there was no concurrent finding of facts with regard to the question of notice ; but that seems to me to be quite immaterial.
Section 100 says nothing about the findings of fact, concurrent or otherwise.
It says that second appeals may be filed if a decision is contrary to law, if a decision fails to determine some material issue of law or if there is any substantial error or defect in the pro-cedure, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case.
Reference may be given to a few authorities to hold that Courts of second appeal must not attempt to extend the scope of the section.
They are all Privy Council cases.
The first is Pertap Chunder Ghose v. Mohendranath Purkait (1). (1889) 17 Cal. 291.
In this ruling at page 298 I find a note" Their Lordships must observe that the limitations to the power of the Court by sections 584 and 585 (now sections 100 and 101) in a second appeal, ought to be attended to, and the appellant ought not to be allowed to question the finding of the first Appellate Court upon a matter of fact."
This was a case in which the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court appear to have come to two different conclusions with regard to the facts.
The next ruling is Durga Chowdhrani v. Jewahir Singh Chowdhri (2). (1890) 18 Cal. 23.
This is also a Privy Council case and at page 30 their Lordships remark: "Nothing can be clearer than the declaration in the Civil Procedure Code that no second appeal will lie except on the grounds specified in section 584.
No Court in India or elsewhere has power to add to or enlarge those grounds. . . . . .It is enough in the present case to say that an erroneous finding of fact is a different thing from an error or defect in procedure, and that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be.
Where there is no error or defect in the procedure, the finding of the first Appellate Court upon a question of fact is final, if that Court had before it evidence proper for its consideration in support of the finding."
In this case also the lower Appellate Court had reversed the decree of the trial Court on facts.
The third case is Ramgopal and another v.Shamskhaton and others .( 1892 ) 20 Cal. 39.
In this case also quoting yet another ruling their Lordships of the Privy Council say: "It has now been conclusively settled that the third court .. . ..cannot entertain an appeal upon any question as to the soundness of findings of fact by the second Court; if there is evidence to be considered, the decision of the second Court, however unsatisfactory it might be if examined, must stand final." ]
——————————————————-
မဖြူ နှင့် ကေစီမစ်ထရာအမှုတွင်၊ထိုစဉ်ကအဆင့်အမြင့်ဆုံးတရားစီရင်ရေးအဖွဲ့ဖြစ်သည့်ပရီဗီကောင်စီ၊စီရင်ထုံးများကိုကိုးကားဆုံးဖြတ်ခဲ့ရာ၊ထိုထုံးဖွဲ့ချက်ပါဥပဒေသသည်ထိုအမှုကိုဆုံးဖြတ်သော၁၉၂၈ခုနှစ်မှစ၍အတည်တကျဖြစ်လျက်ရှိသည့်ဥပဒေဖြစ်သည်။
ထိုဥပဒေကိုနောက်ပိုင်းစီရင်ထုံးများတွင်အခါအားလျော်စွာပြဆိုသည်။
ယနေ့တိုင်ဆန့်ကျင်ဘက်စီရင်ထုံးဟူ၍မရှိ။
————————————————————-
( 1889 )17 Cal. 292 ( P C )
PERTAP CHUNDER GHOSE
V.
MOHENDRANATH PURKAIT
PRIVY COUNCIL.
PRESENT : Lord Watson, Sir B. Peacock, and Sir R. Couch.
[On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.]
29th June, 1889.
အမှုတွင်ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုသည်-
[ Their Lordships have doubted whether the judges of the High Court in hearing the appeals had regard to the provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), s. 584, as to appeals from appellate decrees, and thought they were at liberty to consider the propriety of the findings of the District Judge upon questions Certainly there are passages in their judgment, particularly in the latter part, if not which suggest this.
Their Lordships must observe that the limitations to the power of the Court by ss. 584 and 585, in a second appeal, ought to be attended to, and the appellant ought not to be allowed to question the finding of the first Appellate Court upon a matter of fact. ]
—————————————————-
(1890) 18 Cal. 23 ( P C )
DURGA CHOWDHRANI (PLAINTIFF)
V.
JEWAHIR SINGH CHOWDHRI (DEFENDANT).
[On appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces.]
* Present: LORD MACNAGHTEN, SIR B. PEACOCK, and SIR R. COUCH.
P.C.1890.March 11.April 25.
အမှုတွင်ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုပြသည်-
[ It would be an unprofitable task to inquire how far this contention is well founded, because their Lordships oannot accept the rulings of the High Cowts of Calcutta and Allahabad as a correct statement of the law.
Nothing can be clearer than the declaration in the Civil Procedure Code that no second appeal will lie except on the grounds specified in section 584.
No Court in India or elsewhere has power to add to or enlarge those grounds.
It is always dangerous to paraphrase an enactmont, and not the less so if the onaotment is perhaps not altogether happily expressed.
Their Lordships therefore will not attempt to translato into other words the language of section 584.
It is enough in the present case to say that an erroneous finding of fact is a different thing from an error or defect in procedure, and that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be.
Where there is no error or defect in the procedure, the finding of the first Appellate Court upon a question of fact is final, if that Court had before it evidence proper for its consideration in support of the finding:
Anangamanjari Choudhrani v.Tripura Sundari Chowdhrani (1) L. R., 14 I. A, 101; I. L. R., 11 Calc., 740.
Pertal Chunder Ghose v. Mohendra Purkait (2) L. R., 16 I. A., 233; I. L. R., 17 Calc., 291.]
——————————————-
( I892 ）20 Cal. 39 ( P C )
Ramgopal and another
v.
Shamskhaton and others
Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Appeal of Ram Gopal and another v. Shamskhaton and others, from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces,India ; delivered 23rd July 1892.
Present:
LORD HOBHOUSE.
LORD MORRIS.
LORD HANNEN.
SIR RICHARD COUCH.
LORD SHAND.
[Delivered by Sir Richard Couch.]
အမှုတွင်ပရီဗီကောင်စီကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုပြသည်-
[ It will be sufficient to refer to the last of them, Ramratan Sukal v. Mussumat Nandu (L. R., 19 I. A., 1), where it is said "It has now been conclusively settled that the third Court, which was in this case the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, cannot entertain an appeal upon any question as to the soundness of findings of fact by the second Court; if there is evidence to be considered, the decision of the second Court, however unsatisfactory it
might be if examined, must stand final.”]
—————————————-
1955 BLR ( H C ) 291
SWEE CHWAN BEE RICE MILL CO. (APPELLANT)
Vs.
SUKRU NAHAG (RESPONDENT).*
Before U Ba Thoung, J.
အမှုတွင်တရားလွှတ်တော်က၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၂၉၇၌၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းပြဆိုသည်-
[ These concurrent findings by both the lower Courts must be accepted; besides, I am not prepared to interfere on second appeal, the findings of fact by the lower appellate Court.
In this connection, I would point out the ruling in the case of Ma Pyu v. K. C. Mitra (1) I.L.R. 6 Ran. p. 586.where it has been held that—
"Under the provisions of sections 100, 101, second appeals lie only if the decision is contrary to law or if the decision fails to determine some material issue of law or if there is any substantial error or defect in the procedure.
Section 100 says nothing about the findings of fact, concurrent or otherwise, and therefore the finding of the first appellate Court upon a question of fact is final, if that Court had before it evidence in support of the finding, however unsatisfactory it might be if examined."]
————————————————
Comments
Post a Comment