https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174129 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. en-us Thu, 02 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174129 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174129