The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for review under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. must be limited and restrictive, and the mere statement of law which does not affect the ultimate decision of the case is not a ground for review.

SINGH, J. :- This application has been filed by the respondents seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 5-5-1999 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 77 of 1998. By the aforesaid judgment, this Court set aside and reversed the decree dated 20-4-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura dismissing the Title Suit No. 10 of 1997 and the aforesaid suit was decreed with costs.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), North Tripura, Dharmangar for an amount of Rs. 3,99,982/- with interest for the work executed by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between himself and the respondent for supply of timber. The petitioners herein as respondents contested the suit and after trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. But on appeal the judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed as mentioned above.

3. Mr. U. B. Saha, the learned Senior Government Advocate for the review-petitioners has submitted that the suit brought by the plaintiff was one against the State of Tripura and this Court on an erroneous approach on point of law that the Forest Department having not been made a party the amount due and payable to the Forest Department could not be adjusted and as such the judgment was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Senior Government Advocate also submits that the concerned department may not necessarily be made a party in the suit against the State as the State of Tripura being the respondent superior was the only necessary party under the law.

4. Mr. D. K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent herein opposing the present review petition has submitted that the ground urged in this petition is beyond the scope of review and as such the present review petition is not maintainable. According to Mr. Biswas, unless the ground urged falls within those enumerated in Rule 1 of Order 47 of C.P.C., the review petition has to be rejected. Mr. Biswas also vehemently submits that the ground urged may, at most, amount to a mere error in law which does not amount to error apparent on the face of record or sufficient cause within the meaning of the aforesaid provision of Rule 1 of Order 47 of C.P.C. In support of his contention the learned counsel has cited many decisions. We may refer here some of the decisions cited by Mr. Biswas.

4-A. In the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 at Para 32 it has been held :-

"It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". This conclusion was reiterated by the Judicial Committee in - Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath, AIR 1934 PC 213 and was adopted by our Federal Court in Hari Sankar v. Anath Nath, AIR 1949 FC 106 at pp. 110, 111 (F). Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal recognises the aforesaid limitations and submits that his case comes within the ground of "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" or same ground analogous thereto."

5. Again in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Apex Court held that even a case involving any substantial question of law may not necessarily be an "error apparent on the face of the record". The Apex Court further held that the fact that on the earlier oc