A writ оf prohibition is a' high prerogative writ issued only in rare circumstances when there is nо adequate remedy at law available by way of appeal and where a court attempts to adjudicate a cause over which it has no jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Gargallo, v. Court of Common Pleas (1972),
Civ. R. 60(B) reads, in relevant part:
“On motion and upon such terms as are just,- thе court may relieve a party or his lеgal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the fоllowing reasons: * * '* (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time
The' staff notes for the fifth ground of Civ. R. 60(B) state that it is based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and is intended as a catch-all provision. It is characterized further as reflecting the inherent power of a сourt to relieve a person from' the1 unjust operation of a judgment: Justice Black, in Klapprott v. United States (1949),
“In simple English, the language of thе‘other reason’ clause, for all rеasons except the five párticulárly sрecified, vests1 power in courts adеquate to enable them to vacаte judgments whenever* such action’is appropriate to acconi-plisli justice.”'
Additionally, this court recently stated, in the third
“Where timely reliеf is sought from a default judgment and the. movant hаs a meritorious -defense, doubt, if any, should bе resolved in favor of the motion to sеt aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.”
It is generally held thаt court erfors and omissions are reаsons justifying relief under the “other reason’’ clause. (See 15 A. L. R. Fed. 243-249, Section 12.)
Plaintiffs - sought rеlief from the dismissal, alleging that there werе, error and oversight, specifically: the trial judge’s failure-to rule upon the requеst for the continuance, failure to receive notice of the hearing аnd judgment, and that the judge misled counsel by. stating that a continuance, would be granted. Rеspondent,-, as evinced , by the agreеd statement of facts and the record, acted with subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B), in granting plaintiffs’ motion.
Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is denied.
Writ denied.