Soumitra Panda vs A.K. Agarwal and others

None appears.

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 new fact has been taken by him in the review application and as such no further action as to affirmation of the application is required.

This is an application for review within the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC 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 S. 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.

Review within the frame work of order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC 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 lime and for any other sufficient reason. In the case of (1922) ILR 3 LAH 127 (Privy Council) the Judicial Committee held that Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC 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 analogous 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 Benoy Krishna Rohatgi and Others Vs. Surajbali Misra and Another, , a Division Bench of this High Court has observed that the phrase "Ejusdem generis" is more restricted than the word ''Analogous''. In the case of The Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore, the expression ''for any other sufficient reason'' as contemplated under Order 47, Rule 1 (c) of the CPC has been meant to be a reason sufficient on ground at least analogous to that previously specified in the said Rule

From the perusal of the grounds of the review application in the instant matter it appears that one of the grounds is founded on total misreading of the admitted materials on record which manifestly do not come within the ambit of the purview of connotation of the expression ''discovery of new fact'' and ''error apparent on the face of the record'' and as such it may be constituted to be founded on any other sufficient reason which has its merit and significance other than what is meant as analogous as pin-pointed in the earlier decision of this High Court referred to above by laying stress on the legal concept that the phrase ''Ejusdem Generis'' is more restrictive. As such in my view the review application of the instant nature is required to be supported by an affidavit and accordingly the original noting of the Stamp Reporter appears to be correct and the subsequent revised endorsement seems to be vitiated by mis conception.

Accordingly the learned Advocate for the applicant is given time to have the application for review supported by an affidavit within a week from the date so that it may be in conformity with form. The said short time is given as the learned Advocate for the petitioner is found repeatedly absent on calls on previous occasions and as such default clause is mentioned hereunder and if there is a default in compliance of the same within a period of 10 days the application shall stand dismissed for non-compliance of the formalities in view of the order noted above.

Let a xerox copy of this order by given to the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner upon compliance of the required formalities.

Order accordingly.