STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. B J BHATT DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the original respondents for review of my judgment recorded in Special Civil Application No. 25 of 1974 Against the judgment under review the respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 156 of 1974 in which they tried to produce additional evidence to convince the court of appeal that my judgment under review suffered from infirmity and that it should be reversed. I am told by Mr. Shah who appears for the original respondents that the court of appeal thought that respondents should first apply for review of my judgment in question and that after it was decided the Letters Patent Appeal should be pressed for hearing if necessary. Respondents have therefore filed this application for review of my judgment in question. In my opinion this review petition is not maintainable. I therefore refuse to entertain it.

(2.) Rule I of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a Court to review its own judgment on any one or more of the three grou- nds specified in that Rule. They are as follows :

(3.) Mr. Shah has argued that I should review the judgment in question on account of sufficient reason within the meaning of that expression used in Rule 1 Order 47. It is well-settled that sufficient reason is analogous to two other grounds specified in Rule 1 of Order 47. That is the view which has been taken by Privy Council in CHHAJJU RAM V. NEKI AND OTHERS. A.I.R. 1922 S. C. 112. If sufficient reason is analogous to other grounds and one of the grounds requires exercise of due dilig- ence the expression sufficient reason cannot be construed to include indifference and negligence which are the contrary thereof. In my opinion therefore there is no sufficient reason shown in this case to review the judgment in question. Mr. Shall has invited my attention to the decision of the supreme Court in SHIVDEO SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS A. T. R. 1963 S. C. 1909. In the context of the powers conferred upon the Court by Article 226 of the Consultation and sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code it has been held by the Supreme Court that the High Court mauve exercise the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In that case it was contended that Mr. Justice Khosla (Punjab High Court) had no jurisdiction under Article 226 to review his own order and that therefore the second order made by him was without jurisdiction. In that context the Supreme Court observed as follows: