Roe, J.:— The facts of this case are briefly that on 8th January, 1917 the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahabad made an order for delivery of possession of property purchased in execution of a decree. On 26th January, 1917 the judgment-debtor applied to have that order set aside on the ground that the application for delivery of possession was on the face of it barred by limitation. The matter was taken up on 6th February, 1917, and the learned Subordinate Judge, finding that the order for delivery was barred by limitation, ordered it to be cancelled. His order runs: “Objection is allowed and the delivery of possession is cancelled.”
2. An appeal has been laid to this Court. But that appeal is obviously incompetent for it is now settled law for this province that proceedings for delivery of possession are not proceedings in connexion with the execution of a decree. We are asked however under S. 115 to set aside the learned Subordinate Judge's order on the ground that it is made without jurisdiction. It is to be noted that the whole of the proceedings, both as conceived by the judgment-debtor and by the learned Subordinate Judge, were taken under Section 47 of the CPC, a section which had nothing whatever to do with the matter: but it is urged before us that the Court had jurisdiction under O. 47 to review its own order. For the applicant reliance is placed on Sasibhushan Mookerjee v. Radhanath Bose(1). It was never suggested in that case that the Munsif had no power to review his own order erroneously made delivering possession. All that was said was that he had no power to review an order of his predecessor. It is clear from the decision in Hadjee Abdoollah Reasut Hossein v. Hadjee Abdoollah(2) that this is a type of case in which a Court should review its own order.
3. Through no fault of the judgment-debtor the important fact was kept from the knowledge of the learned Subordinate Judge that this application was time-barred. On the fact being brought to his notice by the judgment-debtor, the learned Subordinate Judge was in our opinion, right in correcting his order and making it in ac cordance with law. We therefore decline to interfere. The appeal is dismissed with posts in accordance with the scale laid down. We make no order as to costs upon the application for revision.
4. Imam, J.:— I agree.
V.S/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.