.. 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2006 Ramkumar G. Khokhawala (Vaishya) & ors ..Applicants versus Smt. Ulfat Begum Mohd. Hanif & Ors ..Respondents ... Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for applicants. .. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :21st September 2006. DATED :21st September 2006. DATED :21st September 2006. P.C:- P.C:- P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. This revision application is directed against the order dated 31st July,2006 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Mumbai dismissing the applicants review petition no.3 of 2006. 2. Under Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure a review can be allowed only on 3 grounds, namely, i) .. 2 : discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by a party when the decree was passed or order made, ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, iii) for any other sufficient reason. 3. In the present case review was not sought on either of the grounds no.i) and ii) mentioned above. However the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the review should have been allowed on the ground no. iii) namely, any other sufficient reason. In my view the phrase ’any other sufficient reason’ derive colour from the earlier two phrases and is in the nature of ejnodem generis. Assuming however, the words ’any other sufficient reason’ are wide enough to consider any other cause not similar to first 2 clauses even then, in my view, no sufficient cause has been made out for the review. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that original order fixed the time for payment of money upto 31st January, 2005. By the review application, the petitioner applicant was seeking .. 3 : extension of time. Counsel for applicant relied upon the decisions which have been referred to in paragraph no.6 of the impugned judgement. They are all decisions given under Section-148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section-148, after the amendment, enables the court to extend the time only by 30 days in all. In the present case, the extension sought was for more than a year. Therefore, obviously Section-148 was not applicable and time could not have been extended by the court by a year under Section-148. In my view, what could not be done by the court under Section-148, cannot be allowed to be done by means of review. I am also not satisfied that there was any sufficient cause on the part of the applicants for non payment of the money in the time. 7. In the circumstances, the revision application is rejected summarily. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.)