Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others

Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others

Subject matter of the case - What is the meaning of "Any other sufficient cause" and principle "of Ejusdem Generis" under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. ?

Facts of the case - 

1. On 22nd October, 1912 one Mr. Chhajju Ram purchased certain lands of villages Kasgar and Jammi Kera from Mrs. Forbes for Rs. 42,000/- Mr. Chhajju Ram also took the possession of the above properties after the execution of the sale deed in his favour.

2. Neki Ram and others filed a suit against Chhajju Ram alleging that the execution of the above sale deed in favour of the defendant is collusive hence the same be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be given the possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of their preemptions. It was argued by the plaintiffs that :-

i. The plaintiffs are Gaur Brahmins by caste and are the occupancy tenants of village Kasgar and were the members of Agriculture Tribes within the meaning of 'Alienation of Lands Act, XII of 1900.

ii. The plaintiffs had no notice of the proposed sale of the land of village Kasgar and the sale deed was executed in collusion of the defendant and seller. The plaintiffs have the pre-emptions to purchase the said land of village Kasgar for Rs. 15,000/- only.

3. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiffs did not possess any pre-emptions to purchase the said land and they intended to exercise this right for the benefit of a third party which is not possible by law.

Decision of Trial Court :-

Holding that the execution of a sale deed in favour of the defendant was a collusive and the plaintiffs were entitled to pre-empt the said property. Trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

The defendant appellant filled appeal in Chief court of Punjab against this decision.

Decision of Chief court of Punjab :-

The defendant raised an additional ground before the court alleging that the plaintiffs instituted the suit for the benefit of third persons who were not agriculturist and as such were not entitled to pre-empt. The court allowed the defendant to give a fresh evidence to prove his contention. The court accepted the plea of the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs submitted a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. alleging that the court ought not to have admitted additional ground of appeal and additional evidence in appeal. The review application was allowed by the Division Bench and the appeal was ordered to be heard by a new bench. Consequently, the new bench was constituted which compromise one of the Judges,  Scott Smith, the same judge who heard the appeal and another judge who was different one. This new bench granted the application for review and order that the appeal be heard. Therefore, the appeal went for hearing before another Division Bench which dismissed the appeal. This division didn't include Scott Smith J.

The defendant appeal to Privy Council against the decision of the Division Bench.

Decision of Privy Council :- Delivering the judgement of the Council, Lord Viscount Haldane observed that according to Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. an application for review can be presented only on three following basis :-

i. New material overlooked by excusable misfortune, or

ii. Mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or

iii. Any other sufficient reason.

The expression "any other sufficient reason" would naturally be read as meaning sufficiently of a kind analogues to the two already specified. That is to say, to the executive failure to bring to the notice of the court new and important matters, or error on the face of record.

Thus, other sufficient reason for review would be grounds analogues to those given at (i) and (ii) on the principle of 'Edjusdem generies'. In this case, there was no grounds for review so the court erred in allowing the review application. The Privy council further considered the application of Rule 5 Order 47. The Bench which passed the first order in appeal consisted of Scott Smith J. and Leslie Jones J. Leslie Jones was unable to work and was absent. The Privy council held that the court of review had to be composed of Scott Smith J. alone because the code contemplates review only by the court which had already given the judgement. The Privy council, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Principles of law laid down :-

1. The expression "Any other sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. means a reason similar to the two reasons specified earlier in the rule.

2. An application for review can be heard only by the Bench which passed the judgement or order under review and even if one of them is absent, it should be heard by the remaining judge alone.