1. Despite apparent authority to the contrary in Liaqat Husain v. Mohammed Kazi AIR. 1944 Oudh 198 and Natesa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar AIR. 1941 Madras 918, I am inclined to the view that a subsequent binding authority (I emhasise the word, "binding") taking a different view of the law (in this case the subsequent decision of a division bench of this court in Kochukutty v. Abraham Tharakan 1968 K.LT. 22 taking a different view of the law from what I took in the decision sought to be reviewed) is a good ground for review. For, it seems to me that it would be the discovery of a new and important matter and, in any case, an error apparent on the face of the record, within the.meaning of R.1 of Order XLVII of the Code. To adopt the language of the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of AP 1964 S.C.1372 at 1377 this would be a case where, without any elaborate argument, one could point to an error regarding which there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained. Therefore, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. That the phrase, "error apparent on the face of the record" is not limited to errors of fact but exte