Advocates:
B.SEN, D.N.MUKHERJI, E.UDAYARATHNAM, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.GHOSH

Key Points: - The judgment discusses the High Court’s revisional powers under S. 115 CPC in cases involving questions of jurisdiction and whether a subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction properly; it clarifies that revisional interference is allowed for jurisdictional errors, not merely erroneous findings of law or fact (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that a Court can admit an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting within time, affecting the period for setting aside abatement under Order XXII Rule 9(2) (!) (!) . - It distinguishes cases where the question concerns jurisdiction as a law question from cases where the question is within the court’s jurisdiction to decide; misapplication of limitation law can render a decision reviewable in revision if it affects jurisdiction (!) (!) . - It confirms that the trial court’s findings on sufficient cause are factual and should not be reversed in revision unless they involve jurisdictional error; High Court’s interference is limited to questions of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, the trial court’s order restored, enabling further execution proceedings (!) (!) . - It cites Manindra, Abbasbhai Alimahomed, Pandurang, D.L.F. Housing, and Misrilal Parasmal as authorities on when revisional jurisdiction can be invoked (jurisdictional issues or illegal exercise) (!) (!) . - It clarifies the distinction between deciding a question of law pertaining to jurisdiction versus merely erroneous application of limitation periods (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires dismissal of suits or applications beyond prescribed periods, while Section 5 allows admission of delayed applications for sufficient cause (!) (!) . - It references the appellate outcome: appeal allowed and order set aside; case to proceed according to law (!) .

What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to findings of fact by a subordinate court in the context of setting aside abatement under Order XXII Rule 9(2) and Article 176 of the Limitation Act?

What is the significance of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for applications under Rule 9(2) of Order XXII, and how does it interact with the period of limitation for setting aside abatement and substitution of legal representatives?

What principles govern upon which issues the High Court can interfere in revision with respect to questions of limitation and jurisdiction, as discussed in the cited precedents like Manindra, Abbasbhai Alimahomed, and Joy Chand Lal Babu?