POYSER SPJ.—Ranasinghe v. Punchihamy.
1938Present: Poyser S. P. J.
RANASINGHE v. PUNCHIHAMY.
P. C. Matara, 25,392.
Powers of Supreme Court in revision—Revision refused by another Judge—No fresh material.
The Supreme Court will not ordinarily exercise its powers of revisionwhere another Judge of the Court has refused to do so and where no newmaterial has been adduced in support.
HIS was an- application for revision of an order of the PoliceMagistrate of Balapitiya.
H. W. Thambiah (with him M. M. Kumarakulasingham), in support.
J. R. Jayawardana (with him Colvin R. de Silva), for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 16, 1938. Poyser S.P.J.—
This application first came before Koch J. on June 30, 1938. Therewas no appearance in support and it was refused. Subsequently, on thesame day, Counsel did appear and moved that he be heard in supportand was heard. Koch J. however again refused to exercise revisionarypowers and the order of the Supreme Court embodying such refusali (1903) 30 I. L. R. Calcutta 687.a (1923) j. j}. 43 Madras 948.
Canaga.ra.tne v. Chelliah.
was sent to the Police Court on July' 2. On August 3, Maartensz J.ordered that the application should be relisted and de Kretser J. onSeptember 26 ordered notice to issue on the respondent.
Mr. Thambiah who appeared for the applicant argued that theMagistrate’s order was wro'ng in law and in support of his argumentcited a judgment of Garvin S.P.J. (S. C. No. 345, S. C. Minutes of June 11,1926). He also argued that the revisionary powers of this Court are verywide and that I could exercise revisionary powers in spite of the previousorder of Koeh.J.
I do not think I should accede to this request. In the first place it wasconceded in the lower Court that the extension of maintenance grantedwas justified on the merits and secondly I do not .think it would be right,except under the most exceptional circumstances, to exercise reVisionarypowers when another Judge has refused to do so.
If Koch J. had refused this application for want of appearance theremight be no objection to granting it, but I must assume that Koch J.when Counsel did appear considered the application On its merits and Imust also assume that Maartensz J. when he ordered the applicationto be relisted did so on the grounds that the application had beendismissed for want of appearance, and I would add that thg notes, madeby the Registrar on the record support this latter assumption.
In view of the above it would I consider be establishing a very undesir-able precedent to exercise revisionary powers when another Judge hasrefused to do so and when no new material is adduced in support of theapplication.
The application is refused with costs.
RANASINGHE v. PUNCHIHAMY