JUDGMENT : 1. Review of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed in TR.P.(C) No. 1 of 2019 : Sadar Nirlep Singh and Another v. Smt. Paramjit Singh & Anr. is sought on the ground that on the date the order was passed, arguing counsel for the petitioner admittedly was not present, on her behalf vice counsel had made a request for adjournment which was not acceded to because it was noticed that the matter has been pending for quiet long time, so adjournment could not be appropriate. Then, in the order it has been observed as under, "The grounds as projected in para 15 of the memo of the petition for transfer can also be projected before the learned trial court, there was no requirement of filing this transfer application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in case she would have been given an opportunity of hearing she would have projected the case in the light of Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act whereas, on the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has been contesting the case for quite long time now, it has dawned on the petitioner that the grant of Probate by the District Judge can take effect regarding property value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. Furthermore, in case, the Probate is granted by the High Court that will have effect irrespective of the value of the property and it will take effect outside the jurisdiction of Meghalaya. 3. The principles relating to review jurisdiction have been summarised which include any "sufficient reason" means, on sufficient reasons, review petition can be maintained. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, her absence on the date of hearing and request made on her behalf for adjournment deprived the petitioner from projecting the case in its right perspective, therefore, submits that there are sufficient reasons for recall of the order. 5. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances and background of the case in order to avoid any further protraction, transfer application is required to be heard afresh so as to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to project her case and also learned counsel for the respondent to oppose the same. 6. 5. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances and background of the case in order to avoid any further protraction, transfer application is required to be heard afresh so as to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to project her case and also learned counsel for the respondent to oppose the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that, if the order under review is recalled she may be given an opportunity to file objections as against the transfer application filed by the petitioner. 7. While considering the whole case in view of the repercussions viz-a- viz the limit of Rs. 10,000/- envisaged by Section 273, the order under review is required to be recalled as such, is recalled. Transfer application shall be listed for hearing afresh in the week following next. 8. Meanwhile, the respondent shall be at liberty to file supplementary objections as against the Transfer application with copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Review petition is allowed and disposed of as above.