အကြောင်းခြင်းရာပြဿနာများနှင့်ဆင်ခြင်တုံတရားအရဆုံးဖြတ်သည့်ကိစ္စများတွင်ထုံးသာဓကဟူ၍မရှိနိုင်။
ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ
အကြောင်းခြင်းရာပြဿနာများနှင့်ဆင်ခြင်တုံတရားအရဆုံးဖြတ်သည့်ကိစ္စများတွင်ထုံးသာဓကဟူ၍မရှိနိုင်။
——————————————
VOL. IV. INDIAN LAW REPORTS. RANGOON SERIES. 18 ( 19 )
APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before Mr. Justice Carr.
MAUNG SAW AND EIGHT OTHERS
v.
MA BWIN BYU.*
Civil Second Appeal No. 150 of 1925.
1925 Dec. 21.
အမှုတွင်တရားသူကြီးတဦးကမိမိရှေ့မှောက်ရှိအကြောင်းခြင်းရာများအရတရားမမှုသို့မဟုတ်အယူခံမှုကိုပြန်ဖွင့်ပေးရန်လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်းမရှိဟုဆုံးဖြတ်ခြင်းသည်အလားတူလျှောက်ထားမှုများနှင့်စပ်လျဉ်း၍အခြားတရားမကြီးမှုများအတွက်ထုံးသာဓကမဖြစ်နိုင်။
အကြောင်းခြင်းရာပြဿနာများနှင့်ဆင်ခြင်တုံတရားအရဆုံးဖြတ်သည့်ကိစ္စများတွင်ထုံးသာဓကဟူ၍မရှိနိုင်ခြင်းကြောင့်ဖြစ်သည်ဟုတရားသူကြီး Carr ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းရှင်းပြသည်-
[ The decision of one Judge on the facts before him that sufficient cause has not been shown for the restoration of a suit or appeal capot provide precedent for other Judges on similar applications.
On questions of fact or matters of discretion there can be no precedent.
Each Judge is entitled to come to the conclusion he thinks right on questions of fact and in matters of discretion. ]
တရားသူကြီး Carr ကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ ၁၉ ၌ဘုံဘေစီရင်ထုံးတရပ်ကိုကိုးကား၍အောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုသည်-
[ The present case is very similar to that of Bilasrai Laxminarayan v. Cursondas Damodardas (1), (1919) 42 Bom. 82. in which a case fourteenth on the list had been called on before 12-30 p.m.
The learned Judges, following an carlier Allahabad case, were of opinion "that the case was one in which, whether there was sufficient cause or not, the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to restore the case for the ends of justice, provided the defendant was amply protected in the matter of costs."
That is, in my view, a correct view of the matter and I shall follow that decision.
I should mention also the case. of Maung Than v. Zainat Bibi (2), (1925) 3 Ran. 488. which was also cited before me.
The facts there were different and the judge expressly held that they were not such as to make out a case for the exercise of the inherent power of the Court.
In this connection I would quote with approval the following words from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in the Bombay case abové cited:-
" But it is dfficult to see how a decision of one Judge on the facts before him that sufficient cause has not been shown for the restoration of a suit can provide a precedent for other Judges on similar applications.
On questions of fact, or matters of discretion there can be no precedent.
Each Judge is entitled to come to the conclusion he thinks right on questions of fact and in matters of discretion." ]
———————————————————
Bilasirai Laxminarayan
vs
Cursondas Damodardas
on 21 July, 1919
Equivalent citations: (1919)21 BOMLR 952
JUDGMENT
Norman Macleod, C.J.
————————————
VOL XLIV. INDIAN LAW REPORTS. BOMBAY SERIES. 82 ( 87 )
ORIGINAL CIVIL.
Before Sir Norman Macleod, Kt., Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Heaton.
BILASRAI LAXMINARAYAN (PLAINTIFF APPELLANT)
v.
CURSONDAS DAMODARDAS (DEFENDANT RESPONDENT).
C.C.J. Appeal No. 13 of 1919.
1919. July 21.
အမှုတွင်ဘုံဘေတရားလွှတ်တော်တရားသူကြီးချုပ် MACLEOD, C. J. ကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ ၈၆ ၌အောက်ပါအတိုင်းမြွက်ဆိုသည်-
[ But it is difficult to see how a decision of one Judge on the facts before him that sufficient cause has not been shown for the restoration of a suit, can provide a precedent for other Judges on similar applications.
On questions of fact or matters of discretion there can be no precedent.
Each Judge is entitled to come to the conclusion he thinks right on questions of fact and in matters of discretion. ]
———————————————————
အထက်ပါစီရင်ထုံးသည်-
VOL. IV. INDIAN LAW REPORTS. RANGOON SERIES. 18 ( 19 )
APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before Mr. Justice Carr.
MAUNG SAW AND EIGHT OTHERS
v.
MA BWIN BYU.*
Civil Second Appeal No. 150 of 1925.
1925 Dec. 21.
စီရင်ထုံးတွင် တရားဝန်ကြီး Carr ကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ ၁၉ ၌ လိုက်နာဆုံးဖြတ်သောစီရင်ထုံးဖြစ်ပါသည်။
———————————————-
Comments
Post a Comment