Review jurisdiction is limited: it cannot reopen merits, and a non-participant Judge cannot hear review where the original Judge is available.

Review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is a limited statutory remedy, confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, and reasons analogous to those grounds. The residual phrase "any other sufficient reason" does not authorise a rehearing on the merits or correction of an earlier legal view simply because a different Bench may disagree. The rule on composition of the review court is also mandatory: where the Judge or Judges who passed the decree or order are available, a Judge who was not part of the original decision cannot hear the review. The review orders were therefore invalid and the original dismissal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on the merits of the earlier decision. (ii) Whether a Judge who did not pass the decree or order can hear the review application under Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on the merits of the earlier decision.

Analysis: Review is a limited statutory jurisdiction distinct from appeal. The grounds specified in Order XLVII, Rule 1 are discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient reason. The residual expression is confined to reasons analogous to the preceding grounds and does not authorise a rehearing on the merits or a correction of an allegedly wrong legal view merely because another Bench takes a different opinion.

Conclusion: The expression does not permit review on merits, and the earlier review order founded on a reappraisal of the legal correctness of the original judgment was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a Judge who did not pass the decree or order can hear the review application under Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order XLVII, Rule 5 requires the review to be heard by the Judge or Judges who passed the decree or order, and if any of them remains attached to the Court and is not precluded by absence or other cause, no other Judge may hear the matter. The rule is mandatory and excludes participation by a Judge who was not part of the original decision where the rule's conditions are not met.

Conclusion: A Judge who did not pass the decree or order could not validly hear the review application in the circumstances of the case.

Final Conclusion: The review proceedings exceeded the statutory limits of review jurisdiction, the later orders were set aside, and the original dismissal of the suit was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to grounds analogous to discovery of new matter and error apparent, and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or for reconsideration of the merits of the original decision.

---