The impugned Section 10-C of the Court of Wards Act was found to be valid and not repugnant to the Civil Procedure Code, as it was permissible under Section 4 of the Code.

JUDGMENT

Narsingha Rau, J. - Appeal No. 91 of 1939 (F.M.A.) - This is an appeal from an order passed on 31st January 1939 by the Second Subordinate Judge, Sylhet. The appellant is the Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet in his capacity as manager of the estate of Kumar Gopika Raman Roy, a ward of Court under the Court of Wards, Assam. The respondent is Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury of Gouripore in the District of Mymensingh in Bengal. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this appeal, can be briefly stated: The respondent lent to the aforesaid Kumar various sums of money aggregating to Rupees seven lacs on five simple mortgage bonds and obtained a decree thereon for the sale of the mortgaged properties. On 16-11-1938 the learned Subordinate Judge, on an application by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, stayed execution on the ground that the Court of "Wards in Assam had taken possession of the property of the mortgagor and that in consequence, Section 10-C inserted by the Assam Court of Wards Amendment Act, 1937 (which was passed by the Assam Legislature after 1st April 1937) operated as a bar to execution. Subsequently,' there was an application on behalf of Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury for review of the Subordinate Judge's order of 16th November 1938 on the ground, amongst others, that the aforesaid Section 10-C inserted by the Court of Wards Amendment Act did not and could not affect his right to proceed with the execution under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. On 31st January 1939, the Subordinate Judge granted the review, holding that the aforesaid Section 10-C was repugnant to certain "existing Indian laws" falling in the Concurrent Legislative List in Schedule 7, Government of India Act, 1935, and not having been reserved for the consideration, or received the assent of the Governor General as required by Section 107(2) of the said Government of India Act was void to the extent of the repugnancy by virtue of Section 107(1) of the same Act.

2. The main question raised before us in this appeal is on the constitutional point just mentioned, namely whether Section 10-C inserted by the aforesaid Assam Act is void. Before dealing with this question, it is necessary to dispose of certain preliminary points raised. It is contended by Dr. Basak on behalf of the appellant that the order granting the review was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the case does not fall within the limits laid down by Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. This Rule provides in effect that the application for a review must be based upon: (i) the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the original order was made; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or (iii) any other sufficient reason. In the present case we do not think that (i) or (ii) applies, but (iii) does. As interpreted by the Privy Council in Chhajjuram v. Neki 9 AIR (1922) P.C. 112 the expression "any other sufficient reason" occurring in this Rule means any other sufficient reason analogous to those specified immediately previously, that is to say to excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new and important matter. We find that in this case there was sufficient reason of this kind. Assuming for the moment that the impugned Assam Act needed the Governor-General's assent to make it completely effective it was a natural presumption for anybody to make that the necessary assent had been obtained. It is true that if the applicant for review had taken care to study all the Assam Gazette notifications that appeared from time to time, he would have noticed that in the Gazette of 17th November 1937, the Act in question had been notified as having received the Governor's assent on 5th November 1937. From this he could have inferred had he been familiar with the provisions of the new Governme