BENOY KRISHNA ROHATGI Vs. SURAJBALI MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 13th March, 1951 the plaintiff instituted this suit, inter alia, for the recovery of possession of the land at premises No. 12/1/1A, Khangraputty Street, in Calcutta. The suit appeared in the appropriate Prospective List C on the 17th November, 1956. Mr. M. R. Bose, a Solicitor of this Court was appearing on behalf of the defendants but in the Prospective List the name of Messrs. Mitter and Bural appeared as the defendant's attorneys. On the 12th February, 1952 the suit appeared in my Warning List. Here, again, Messrs. Milter and Bural were stated to be the defendant's solicitors. The suit was placed in my Peremptory List on the 14th February 1958. The same mistake was committed in the Peremptory List as well. On the 14th February, 1958 the suit was passed over twice and on the third occasion an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs was made by me. On the 9th January 1959 Mr. M. R. Bose, Solicitor for the defendants, wrote to the plaintiffs Solicitor asking for inspection of the document disclosed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's Solicitor replied that an ex parte decree had already been passed on the 14th February, 1958. On January 12, 1959 the defendants' Solicitor furnished requisition to the Registrar for inspection of the records of this suit. On the 21st January, 1959 inspection was given to him. A Notice of Motion was taken out by the defendant's Solicitor on the 28th January, 1959 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The application was heard by me on the 3rd March 1959 when I dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. On the 19th March 1959 the defendant's Solicitor obtained a certified copy of the decree. He took out a Notice of Motion for condonation of the delay in making an application for review and leave to file memorandum of reviewon the 25th March 1959. I heard this application on the 2nd June 1959 and without prejudice to the respondent's contention that an application for review did not lie. I made an order, inter alia, condoning the delay and granting leave to the defendants to file their memorandum of review on or before the 6th June 1959. A Rule was issued on the 10th June 1959 calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the application for review should not be granted and the suit set down for re -hearing. The Rule was made returnable four weeks from date.

(2.) AT the hearing of this application Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the judgment and decree passed by me on the 14th February 1958 should be reviewed on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or on grounds analogous thereto inasmuch as in the Warning List the name of Messrs. Mitter and Bural was printed or published as attorneys for the defendants and the name of Mr. M. R. Bose, the defendant's solicitor, was not at all printed or published in my Peremptory List of the 14th February, 1958.

(3.) IN K. K. S. A. L. Firm v. Maung Kya Nyun, AIR 1928 Rang 31, it was held that the phrase 'ejusdem generis' is more restricted than the word 'analogous'. In Chokkalingam v. Lakshmanan, AIR 1920 Mad 633 it was observed that 'if a party can bring an application within the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, the fact that he could also have applied under Order 9 Rule 13 cannot be treated as a bar to it' and that