BAILAL Vs. SUALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TIS is an application for review from my judgment in Second Appeal No. 145 of 1963, arising from a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent in the year 1957 for possession and mesne profits in respect of agricultural lands (Civil Suit No. 49 of 1957). A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in second appeal. Two contentions were raised by the defendant-appellant. Bot of them were decided against him. Aggrieved by tat decision, the defendant as made this application for review. Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, as confined it to one question only.

(2.) ONE of the defendant's contentions wic I rejected was tat he was entitled to the benefit of the Bopal State Sub-tenants (or Occupants) Protection Act (No. 1 of 1955). The reason for rejecting tat contention was tat the said Bopal Act was repealed by the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the trial Court decided the suit (on 7 May 1960). It was eld tat even if the defendant could not be dispossessed because of the provisions of the Bopal Sub-thenants Prothection Act, tat prothection was lost no sooner tan the M.P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, came into force. It is the petitioner's conthention tat the provisions of section 261 (d) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were lost sigt of.

(3.) RESISTING this petition, Sri Dabir, learned counsel for the plaintiff, urges tat the judgment in the second appeal cannot be set aside, even if there is an incorrect exposition of the law, because tat is no ground for review and tat the defendant's remedy lay by way of an appeal. Reliance is placed on Sitaram v. Kaniram(12NLJ 148 = AIR 1929 Nag. 251=27 NLR 102 FB); J.N. Sahani v. State (AIR 1956 MB 174 FB) ; Laxman Anandrao v. Ramcandra Wasudeo?(1938 NLJ 48=AIR 1938 Nag. 145=ILR 1938 Nag. 151); Dev Krisna v. Dani Ram(1959 MPLJ 925=AIR 1959 MP 217): Kisan Chand v. Mukan Samp(AIR 1931 All. 91) and Srimati Garabini Kumarin v. Suraja Narain Sing (ILR 3 Pat. 134).