JUDGMENT

Mitter, J. - This rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Khulna, dated the 11th August 1926, rejecting an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. for review of a contested judgment should not be set aside. It appears that the judgment in the suit which was commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of land as also for mesne profits was based on Ex. 1, which was a judgment of the Additional District -Judge of Khulna which held that the plaintiff had no subsisting title to the disputed land. That judgment has to some extent been set aside by a decision of the High Court in the case of Sadananda Mandal v. Kumar Jyotish Kanta AIR 1926 Cal. 952. It has been argued by Mr. Sen that as the judgment on which reliance was placed by the Munsif has been set aside by the High Court, a good ground has been made out for review of judgment. Mr. Sen has argued forcibly that even if a case for review has not been made out, the Court should interfere under its inherent power u/s 151, Civil P.C. I am not satisfied that the mere reversal of the judgment (Ex. 1) which was put in a