9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Review of judgment under Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Interpretation of the phrase "for any other sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order by way of review of judgment. 4. Merits of the order granting a review of judgment. Analysis: 1. The judgment in question involves a review of a decree passed between the parties, where the plaintiffs were required to deliver 63 bales of cotton to the defendants by a specified date. The plaintiffs sought an extension of time due to external factors beyond their control, specifically a strike causing a railway company to refuse transportation. The Court, exercising its powers of review under Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granted the review, modifying the decree to extend the deadline. The Court found that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient cause for their inability to comply with the original decree, leading to the modification of the judgment. 2. The appeal by the defendants against the order granting the review primarily challenged the interpretation of the phrase "for any other sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1. The defendants argued that this phrase should not be extended to matters not ejusdem generis with those referred to earlier in the rule. However, the Court held that the wide scope of the phrase was intentional, allowing for exceptional cases where strict adherence to the original decree would result in injustice. The Court emphasized that if the power to review judgment existed under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 114, the Court was acting within its jurisdiction. 3. The judgment further addressed the jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order by way of review of judgment. The Court dismissed the argument that the order exceeded the Court's jurisdiction, citing precedents and emphasizing that the order in question was passed expressly as a review of judgment. The Court maintained that the legislature intentionally provided wide discretion under Order 47, Rule 1 to address exceptional cases where strict adherence to the original decree would lead to injustice. 4. Finally, the judgment considered the merits of the order granting the review of judgment. The Court acknowledged some arguments against the course followed by the trial Court but highlighted the technical limitations on appealing such orders under Order 47, Rule 7. The Court emphasized that an appeal against an order granting a review must be supported by grounds within the scope of the rule and dismissed the appeal by the defendants, affirming that the arguments presented did not fall within the purview of the clauses of Order 47, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
|
