CHANDRAN Vs. SHEELA AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from the judgment in A.S.No.19/86 passed in a final decree proceedings in a partition suit.

(2.) The dispute in this case centres round the allotment of one plot of land shown as 'A' in the plan prepared by the commissioner. A commissioner was deputed to prepare a plan of the property and for proper allocation of shares between various parties. The commissioner suggested two modes of allotment. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 12th July, 1983 allotted plot 'A' in Ext. Cl plan to the 19th respondent. The 19th respondent was also directed to pay Rs.547.50 to the 17th plaintiff, the present appellant, for equalisation of shares. Aggrieved by this the 17th plaintiff filed A.S.No.19/86. The learned Sub Judge by his order dated 31-10-1989 confirmed the order passed by the Munsiff with slight modification. The amount ordered to be paid by the 19th respondent to 17th plaintiff was enhanced to Rs.3500/-. This was on account of the fact that the 17th plaintiff raised objection that he was not getting legitimate share of the property having road frontage and that the 19th respondent was getting property in excess of his share. The 17th plaintiff later filed an application to review the judgment passed in A.S.19/86. The Sub Judge by his order dated 27-3-1990 reviewed his judgment dated 31-10-89 and allotted 'A' plot to the 17th plaintiff and 'C' plot was allotted to the 19th respondent. Aggrieved by this order the 19th respondent has filed the civil miscellaneous appeal. The second appeal is filed by the 19th plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal contended that the Sub Judge has seriously erred in reviewing his earlier order and it is a clear violation of O.47 Rule I of C.P.C. Under R.l(l)(c) of O.47 a decree or order could be reviewed only on the grounds specified under this Section. A decree or order could be reviewed on the ground of discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or it could not be produced by him at the time when the original decree or order was passed. A decree or order could also be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The 3rd ground for review is stated to be any other sufficient reason. This Court in Rajamony v. Mohammed ( 1978 KLT 417 ) pointed out that an application for review would lie on stated and specific grounds, viz. a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of a new and important matter which could not have been produced despite due diligence, at the original hearing, or for any other sufficient reason. This Court held that the last expressions, "any other sufficient reasons" have to be understood ejusdem generis with the words preceding. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Sub Judge has reviewed the matter on the ground that there was mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.