( 1 ) THIS is an application for a review of judgment dated 17th of August 1961.

( 2 ) THE review has been sought on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The application for review has been made under Or. 47 R. I. C. P. C. and the prayer is in these words:

"it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to review its judgment and decree dated 17-8-1961, and after recalling or setting aside the same, be pleased to order that proceeding in the above Second Appeal shall remain stayed in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act".

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the true Import of the (prayer it is necessary to notice a few facts.

( 4 ) SOMETIME in the year 1953 a suit for possassion cf six plots covering an area of 6 bighas 12 biswas, situated in village Asharfabad was filed in the court of the Munsif of Mirzapur. On the 13th of April 1955 the aforementioned suit was decreed for possession with costs against the second defendant to the suit. An appeal was preferred against the decision of the learned Munsif and that appeal was decided by the lower appellate court on the 28th of July 1956. The decision in the appeal was against the appellant with the result that the decision of the Munsif was confirmed. A second appeal was filed in this court on the 23rd of August 1956. The second appeal came up before a learned single judge on the 20th of April 1961. The learned single judge referred the appeal to a Bench and it came up before us for decision on the 17th of August 1961. We decided the appeal in favour of the appellant and the result of our decision was that the plaintiffs suit stood dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the 29th of November 1961 the present application for review was made. The reason for the review was sought in the fact that there had been a notification made under the provisions of section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, in respect of the area in which the plots in dispute lay. This notification was said to have been made on the 27th of June 1961; and said to have beer published in the Official Gazette of that date.

( 6 ) THE effect of the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings act was as provided for by Section 5 (b) (i) that ail proceedings for correction of records and all suits for declaration, of rights and interest over land or for possession of land or for partition, pending before any authority or court, whether in appeal or reference or revision, was to stand stayed. The suit which was to remain stayed under Section 5 (b) (i) was ultimately to be decided in accordance with the decision given by the Consolidation courts.

( 7 ) FROM the narration of the facts above it would clearly appear that on the date on which this second appeal came up before this Bench there was a subsisting notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 (b) (i), the second appeal could not be heard by us because under that section it stood stayed. The question that falls for determination is whether when the appeal was decided by us in ignorance of there having been a notification in respect of the property, under Section 4 of the consolidation of Holdings Act, whether that decision of ours was liable to be set aside or recalled on a review application.

( 8 ) A review can be had under the provisions of Order 47 on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due deligence, did not come within the knowledge of the party seeking the review and such evidence could not be produced by him at the time the decree was passed or the order made or there was some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. There can be no doubt now that the expression "sufficient reason" which appeared in Order 47 Rule 1 (1) (c) had to be ejusdem generis the othe