Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 111 (KER)

Anil Kumar v. Director Of Agriculture

2004-03-11

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2004
ORDER B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner in I.A.No. 604 of 1994 in L.A.R. No. 305 of 1988, on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala has preferred this revision against the order dated 18-7-1995. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge rejected the petition for review of the order dated 19.3.1994. 2. The petitioner was the claimant in L.A.R. No. 305 of 1988. The case was posted for evidence on 17.3.1994. The petitioner was laid up due to illness and as such she could not remain present on that day. The prayer for adjournment was rejected. Accordingly, the reference was disposed of exparte against the petitioner on 19.3.1994. Hence she filed I.A.No. 604 of 1994, styled as petition under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for review of the order dated 19.3.1994. It was dismissed by order dated 18.7.1995. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. The court below held that a petition under S.151 C.P.C. is not maintainable for a review of the order dt. 19-3-94. No case is made out under O.47 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court could consider the petition on the ground that there was sufficient reason to review the order as envisaged in O.47 of the C. P. C. 4. Sub-r.(1) of R.1 of O.47 C.P.C. contemplates that any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a court, exercising small cause jurisdiction, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. 5. 5. Admittedly this is not a case where the petitioner took the plea that a new and important matter or evidence was discovered later and it was not within his knowledge or could not be discovered after the exercise of due diligence and that it could not be produced at the time when the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, review of the order is warranted. 6. The exparte order in the case was passed on the ground that the petitioner was absent when the case was allied on for hearing. It is true that a petition for adjournment was filed which was dismissed by the court. The ground on which adjournment petition filed is that she was laid up with illness on that day. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a sufficient reason for review of the exparte order passed in the L. A. R. case. Such a contention is not tenable. 7. The expression "any other sufficient reason" occurring in O.47 R.1 C. P. C. means a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. (See Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 : 1954 KLT 385). When two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, the words lake their colour from each other. This court in Board of Revenue v. P. K. Syed Akbar sahib ( 1973 KLT 497 ) and in Rajamony v. Mohamed ( 1978 KLT 417 ) observed that the expression "any other sufficient reason" occurring in O.47 R.1 C. P. C. should be understood ejusdem generis with the two grounds immediately preceding it. The reason for default in appearance when the case was called on for hearing cannot be considered to be sufficient reason because it is not analogous to the grounds immediately preceding it. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the court below rightly rejected the petition for review of the order passed on 19-3-94. 8. For the reason stated above, I find that there is no merit in this C. P. C. It is, fore, dismissed.