RANJIT BISWAS Vs. PABITRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the judgment dated 2-9-94 passd by this Court dismissing Civil Revision 9 of 1990 on merits.

(2.) The maim ground taken in the review application is that the petitioner engaged Shri D.C. Chakraborty and Shri S.K. Senapati, Advocates, to conduct the aforesaid Civil Revision before this Court. But after the Civil Revision was disposed of in absence of the counsel of the petitioner by judgment dated 2-9-94, the petitioner came to learn that Shri S.K. Senapati has already expired and Shri D.C. Chakraborty has also retired from practice. Due to death of Shri S.K. Senapati and retirement of Shri D.C. Chakraborty from practice, the petitioner was not represented at the time of hearing of the Civil Revision and an ex-parte judgment was delivered dismissing the Civil Revision on merits. Ad the hearing Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the aforesaid ground taken in the Review Application constitutes "other sufficient reason" within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for which review of the judgment can be ordered by this Court. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.M.B. Catholicos -Vs- M.P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 in support of the aforesaid submissions.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court cited by Mr. Singh as well as decision in the cases reported in AIR 1922 PC 112, AIR 1934 PC 214, AIR 1954 Patna 163, AIR 1957 Nagpur 97,1990 (2) GLR 189, clearly show that the expression "other sufficient reason" would mean reason sufficient on the grounds at least analogous to those specified in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mr. Pathak argued that in the present case, the rview was sought only on the ground of absence of counsel of the parties at the time of hearing of the revision petition which cannot be treated as analogous to discovery of new and important matter or evidence or mistake or error apparent on the lace of record. Mr. Pathak further submitted that the judgment dated 2-9-94 of this Court would show that the Civil Revision was dismissed on merits mainly on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the learned Assistant District Judge in the Judgment in T.A. No. 16/89 and that the said judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge did not contain any error of jurisdiction. According to Mr. Pathak, it would have been a different matter if the Civil Revision had been dismissed for default.