Report No. 141
3.8. A Patna case.-
In a Patna case1, the petitioners had filed a revision petition against their conviction and sentence, but had not attached a copy of the judgment of the trial court. The court allowed one week for filing certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. A direction was further given, that if the copy was not filed within the stipulated time, then the revision petition was to stand dismissed, but an application was made to the High Court to restore it.
The Patna High Court held that the bar against review (as contained in section 369 of the code of 1898) did not prohibit restoration of a revision dismissed for default, because such order of dismissal was not a "judgment". The inherent power of the High Court was also relied on in support of such restoration. It should, however, be noted that in so far as this ruling of the Patna High Court stresses the narrow word "judgment" used in section 369 of the Code as in force at that time, the ruling has lost much of its utility because the present section uses the expression "or final order" also.
1. Ram Autar Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat 33.