This is an application for review of the judgment dated 2.9.94 passed by this Court dismissing Civil Revision No.9 of 1990 on merit. 2. The main ground taken in the review application is that the petitioner engaged Shri DC Chakravorty and Shri SK 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 SK. Senapati has already expired and Shri DC Chakravorty has also retired from practice. Due to death of Shri SK Senapati and retirement of Shri DC Chakravorty from practice, the petitioner was not represented at the time of hearing of the civil revision and an exparte judgment was delivered dismissing the civil revision on merits. At the hearing Mr. BL 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 MMB Catholicos vs. MP Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 in support of the aforesaid submissions. 3. Mr. KP Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent 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 198 [1990 (1) GLJ 518], clearly show that the expression 'other sufficient reason' would mean reason sufficient on the ground 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. Mr. Pathak argued that in the present case, the review 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 face 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 TA No.16 of 1989 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. 4. On a reading of the judgment dated 2.9.94 which is under review, I find that the civil revision was listed for hearing on 23.8.94,24.8.94 and 30.8.94 and thereafter, but neither Mr. SK Senapati nor Mr. DC Chakravorty appeared before the Court on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly this Court proceeded to hear the civil revision and decided the matter on merits. The Court proceeded on a mistake or error that Shri SK Senapati and Shri IX! Chakravorty were in practice and had yet not appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated in paragraph 5 of the petition for review supported by affidavit that only after the civil revision was disposed of on 2.9.94, he came to learn that Shri SK Senapati had expired and Shri DC Chakravorty had retired from practice in the meanwhile. The petitioner has been residing at Dhubri in the State of Assam and after he engaged Shri SK Senapati and Shri DC Chakravorty to conduct the civil revision on his behalf in this Court at Guwahati, it was reasonable on the part of the petitioner to presume that the said Advocates were taking care of his case in the Court at Guwahati and unless the petitioner had knowledge of the fact of death of late SK Senapati or the fact of retirement of DC Chakravorty, it was not expected of him to have taken steps for engaging another counsel to conduct the civil revision on his behalf. 5. 5. This is, therefore, not just a case of absence of the counsel of the petitioner at the time of hearing but a total non-representation of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the civil revision on account of death of a counsel and retirement of another counsel of the petitioner from practice of which the petitioner had no knowledge. Without hearing the petitioner or his counsel on the merits of the civil revision, it is difficult to predict at this stage as to whether the Court will still hold the same view on merits as in the judgment dated 2.9.94 under review. In die case, of Savitri Amma Seethamma vs. Aratha Karthy, AIR 1983 SC 318 , a civil revision had been heard and disppsed of by the High Court in absence of the respondent or his Advocate and the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have reheard the civil revision applying the principle of Order 41, Rule 21 CPC. Although the provisions of Order 41, Rule 21 do not strictly apply to the facts of the present case, in my opinion, there are substantial and compelling reasons indicated above which are analogous to other grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC for allowing this review on "other sufficient reason" and for hearing the civil revision afresh on merits. In the result, this review application is allowed and Civil Revision No.9 of 1990 is posted for hearing to the date when I next sit single.