SOUMITRA PANDA Vs. A K AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Today the matter has appeared for order. It appears that after filing of the application for review the Stamp Reporter endorsed on 29.7.93 that the review application has been filed without being affirmed and with a direction for the return of the same to the learned Advocate for presentation. On the next day, being 30.7.93 the Stamp Reporter revised the endorsement on the statement of the learned Advocate recorded by him that no fact has been taken by him in the review application and as such no further action as to affirmation of the application is required.

(2.) This is an application for review within the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplate review as an application and Rule 3 thereof envisages form of an application for review. It is pertinent to mention in this context that section 124 of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation of an application for review. Chapter 4 of the Appellate Side Rules lays down general rules for applications and affidavits. It has been spelt out in the schedule appended thereto as to where affidavit is necessary and where it is not necessary.

(3.) Review within the framework of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is contemplated only on error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new fact which could not have been found out even by diligence at the appropriate point of time and for any other sufficient reason. In the case of Charu Ram v. Neki reported in AIR 1922 Privy Council, Page 112 the Judicial Committee held that Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be read as in itself definitive in limit within which a decree or order is permitted and 'any other sufficient reason' means a sufficient reason on the ground at least analoguous to this specified in the Rule. It is not out of context to be reminded of the celebrated observation of Rankin, J. that the fact as found in the application must constitute within the Rule 'Sufficient Reason'. The connotation of the expression 'for any other sufficient reason' as contemplated in Order 47, Rule 1 means that the reason thereof must be for review which is similar in nature but does not come within the first two reasons mentioned in Rule 1 of Order 47. In the case of Binay Krishna v. Suraj Bali Misra reported in AIR 1963 Calcutta 100, a Division Bench of this High Court has observed that the phrase "Ejusdem generis" is more restricted that the word 'Analogous'. In the case of Administrator General, West Bengal, reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta Pg. 231 the expression 'for any other sufficient reason' as contemplated under Order 47, Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been meant to be a reason sufficient on ground at least analoguous to that previously specified in the said Rule.