Revisional jurisdiction cannot upset a factual finding of sufficient cause for delayed substitution absent jurisdictional error.

A revisional court cannot interfere with a subordinate court's factual finding of sufficient cause for delayed substitution and for setting aside abatement where the trial court was competent to decide that issue. Section 5 of the Limitation Act could enable relief under Order XXII Rule 9(2) if sufficient cause was shown, and the existence of that cause was a question of fact within the trial court's jurisdiction. Revisional interference under Section 115 was confined to jurisdictional error, not mere reassessment of facts. The High Court therefore had no basis to disturb the finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, interfere with the Subordinate Court's finding that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for not bringing the legal representatives on record in time and for not applying for setting aside abatement within the period of limitation.

Analysis: The limitation provisions required the plaintiff to move within the prescribed periods for substitution and for setting aside abatement, and an application under Order XXII Rule 9(2) was subject to the enabling provision of Section 5 where sufficient cause was shown. The finding whether sufficient cause existed was a matter the trial court was competent to decide on facts. Revisional interference under Section 115 was confined to cases of jurisdictional error, such as a court assuming jurisdiction it did not possess or refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. A wrong appreciation of facts, where the court had jurisdiction to decide the matter, did not justify revision. The distinction drawn in earlier authorities concerning limitation or res judicata affecting jurisdiction was held inapplicable here because the trial court was called upon to decide factual questions within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not entitled to interfere in revision with the trial court's factual finding of sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court cannot interfere with a subordinate court's factual determination of sufficient cause under Order XXII Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act unless the determination involves a jurisdictional error.

---