The scope of review of an order is limited and does not allow the court to hear a matter de novo. The grounds for review are limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

By consent of the parties, the aforementioned CAN 2011 of 2009 is treated as on day's list.

2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in respect of an application for review of an order dated 26th June, 2008 passed by this Court in C.O. 3009 of 2006.

4. Upon considering the submissions made and upon perusing the instant application, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condo-nation of delay of 215 days in filing the Review application. The delay is condoned and the application thus stands allowed.

Re : RVW 39 .of 2009

5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. This application, styled as a review application, is in respect of an order passed by this Court on 26th June, 2008 in C.O. 3009 of 2006.

6. The applicant before this Court was the defendant/opposite party in a revisional application, being C.O. No. 3009 of 2006. By the order dated 26th June, 2008, this Court, upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties gave certain directions and disposed of the revisional application. One such direction contained in the order dated 26th June, 2008 was upon the defendant/ opposite party who was directed to deposit the total decretal amount (without interest component) for contesting the suit on merit. This Court also directed payment to be made in terms of that order within a period of six weeks from date of order. In default, the defendant would be automatically disabled from contesting the suit. This Court also observed further that in that event, the decree dated 15th January, 2003 would stand revived and it would be opened to the plaintiff to take steps to execute the said decree in accordance with law.

7. This Court also directed the learned Court below to hear out and dispose of the suit, subject to compliance with the directions given therein, a period of 12 weeks and without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and if so required, hold day to day hearing to ensure that the suit was disposed within the specified time-frame. There was a further observation in the order dated 26th June, 2008 to the effect that if the particular Bench of the learned Court below was not available or vacant, the learned Judge-in-charge of that Bench was to hear out and dispose of the suit in terms of the directions given therein.

8. In the present review application taken out by the defendant/opposite party, the following grounds have been taken:

"I. For that the order of the Hon'ble single Judge herein is vitiated by erroneous findings of law and fact.

II. For that the Hon'ble single Judge erred in relying upon the statements of the opposite party herein. "

III. For that the question of error appears on the face of record may be that of law as well as fact. Hence the Hon'ble single Judge ought not to have modified the order as it will be much hard for your petitioner to arrange for so much of money as he is a humble broker dealing in garments business and has no sufficient bank balance to provide for the cost.

IV. For that the question of error appears on the face of record may be that of law as well as fact. Hence the Hon'ble single Judge ought not to have modified the order as it will be much hard for your petitioner to arrange for so much of money as he and his son both are physically handicap and cannot lead a normal life.

V. For that the question of error appears on the face of record may be that of law as well as fact. Hence the Hon'ble single Judge ought not to have modified the order as directing to deposit the total decretal amount before hearing the money suit on merit, will virtually amounts in allowing the said suit and your petitioner will have nothing to defend in the said money suit.

VI. For that the impugned order is otherwise bad in law."

9. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, being the defendant in the Court below, submits that the above grounds constitute su