Review jurisdiction permits recall where counsel omits material issues that could affect the outcome of a writ petition.

In review jurisdiction, "sufficient reason" is broad enough to include a material omission by counsel where independent grounds in the writ petition were not argued and therefore not adjudicated. The court noted that collateral claims relating to exemption on manufacture of plastic bottles and allied issues had a direct bearing on the result, and their non-consideration justified recall of the dismissal order. The earlier dismissal was therefore reviewed and recalled, and no separate order was required in the connected review matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure of counsel to argue material collateral issues raised in the writ petition constituted sufficient reason to review or recall the earlier dismissal order.

Analysis: The writ petition had been dismissed by reference to the decision in the connected matter, but the record showed that the present petitioner had also raised independent grounds relating to exemption on manufacture of plastic bottles and allied claims. Those issues were not adjudicated on merits because they were not advanced at the hearing. In review jurisdiction, the expression "sufficient reason" is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law, including a material omission by counsel, where the omission prevented consideration of issues having a bearing on the result.

Conclusion: The failure to argue the collateral issues was treated as sufficient reason to review and recall the dismissal order.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed and the earlier dismissal was recalled, while no separate order was required in the connected review matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, sufficient reason for review may include a material omission by counsel that prevented adjudication of an issue having a direct bearing on the outcome.

---