JUDGMENT

Maung Ba, J - This is an application for a certificate under Clause 13, Letters Patent, that it is a fit case for appeal.

2. As the point involved is one of construction to be put upon the phrase " any other sufficient reason " used in Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C., I have allowed both sides to argue that point. The applicant Chettyar firm brought a suit against the respondents on a promissory-note, and the respondents denied execution of that note. In the evidence tendered by the applicants it was alleged that the writer of the note was one Ma Tin U, but the applicants made no attempt to produce her. Consequently the respondents applied to the trial Judge for an adjournment to enable them to produce her in order to rebut the evidence tendered against them. The learned Judge accordingly adjourned the case. The 'respondents took out a summons, but as the witness was not to be found at her old address the summons was returned unserved. The respondents then applied to the Judge to give them another adjournment to enable them to make further efforts to secure that witness. But the Judge, who was presumably actuated by a desire to show short duration, refused to grant any more adjournment and proceeded with the trial which resulted in a decree being passed against the respondents. The respondents subsequently succeeded in finding the witness and applied to the trial Court for a review. The Judge granted the review and gave the following reason:

I see every effort was made by the applicants to bring Ma Tin U into the witness-box, but as she could not be found applicants were obliged to close their case as no further adjournment was allowed. The reason why this Court declined to allow any further adjournment by that time was to save the case pending idly for many months and not with reason to object to the examination of Ma Tin U. Since the Court has no objection to examination of Ma Tin U, I consider this application on this ground is a fit one to be admitted.

3. Against that order the applicants went upon appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal recording the following reason:

The lower Court was satisfied that respondents had made every effort to bring Ma Tin XJ to Court. There was documentary evidence on the record showing how respondents had taken out a summons and how that summons was returned with a report that 11a Tin U's whereabouts were unknown. In my opinion the provisions of Order 47, Rule 4, sub-Clause (2)(b) have been complied with and so there is no cause for interference.

4. The Chettyar firm were still not satisfied and came up to this Court on revision. I dismissed that application for revision saying:

On taking account of the circumstances under which the respondents were not given as opportunity of producing the rebutting evidence, I consider that those circumstances constituted a "sufficient reason" within the meaning of Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C. That reason need not be clude genre is with the other two specific grounds mentioned in that vule. It must be one sufficient to the Court or Judge dealing with the application for review. The. question of the sufficiency of any reason must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

5. It is now contended that my view, namely, that reason need not be ejusdem generis with the other two specific grounds is incorrect. In support of this contention the case of Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 112, decided by a Full Bench of the Privy Council, has been quoted. Viscount Haldane, who delivered the judgment of the Board, construed the phrase "any other sufficient reason " in the following words:

Their Lordships think that Rule 1, Order 47 must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which review is today permitted, and the reference to practice under former and different statutes is misleading. So construing it they interpret the words " any other sufficient reason, as meaning a reason sufficient on grounds at le