KIRTY, J.:- These two applications having been referred to a Full Bench by the learned Acting Chief Justice by an order dated 28-7-1972 have come up before us. Application No. 3303 of 1970 was filed on 14-5-1970 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other application filed on 23-3-1969 is under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the learned Acting Chief Justice a contention was raised that Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari, (AIR 1934 All 100 (2) ). On behalf of the applicant, however, reliance was placed on Ruhulghane v. B. Uma Shankar, (AIR 1944 Oudh 5). In view of the apparent conflict between the decisions in these two cases reference to a Full Bench was made by the learned Acting Chief Justice.

2. Suit No. 254 of 1952 was instituted by the applicant against Ram Lal, Ganesh and Smt. Saraswati, inter alia, for possession of a house described at the foot of the plaint. The house, which was the subject-matter of the suit, was purchased by the plaintiff from Panna Lal under a sale deed dated 8th June, 1950. Panna Lal entered appearance but did not contest the suit. In his written statement he admitted having sold the suit property to the plaintiff and further pleaded that the other defendants were in occupation of the house as tenants. The suit was, however, contested by Ganesh and Smt. Saraswati. It was pleaded by them that they were not in possession of the property as tenants but in their own right as owners. Amongst other pleas, a plea of adverse possession was also taken. It was, however, nowhere stated in the written statement that the subject-matter of the suit was not the same property which was sold by Panna Lal to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 8-6-1950. The trial court framed a number of issues which were answered in plaintiff's favour. The suit accordingly was decreed on 27-5-1957 for possession of the house in suit. An appeal against the decree of the trial court was preferred by Ganesh. It appears that during the pendency of the suit in the trial court Smt. Saraswati, who was the mother of Ganesh, died. No application was filed by the plaintiff for substituting the names of the legal representatives of Smt. Saraswati in her place. The appeal filed by Ganesh was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi on 15-10-1958. Thereafter Ganesh filed a Second Appeal (S. A No. 1612 of 1958) in this Court. This second Appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil P. C. on 27-1-1959.

Thereafter the plaintiff-decree-holder executed the decree. A warrant for delivery of possession was issued and when the Amin went to deliver possession it was found out that the description of the northern and southern boundaries of the property, as mentioned in the decree, did not tally with the actual northern and southern boundaries of the house on the spot. The Amin under the circumstances returned the warrant unexecuted along with a report mentioning therein the discrepancy. The discrepancy, however, was only this; 'The boundary which was shown as the northern boundary in fact was the southern boundary of the house'. Similarly the southern boundary as shown in the decree was actually the northern boundary. In the plaint the property in suit was described as house No. 125 situated in Mohallah Choudharana. The boundaries of the house in suit, were also mentioned in the plaint. It, however, appears that neither in the trial court nor in the appellate court nor even in the second Appeal in this Court was it ever alleged by Ganesh that the house in suit was not the same as the house conveyed to the plaintiff by Panna Lal under the sale deed dated 8-6-1950. That is to say, there never existed any dispute between the parties concerned in regard to the identity of the house which was the subject-matter of the suit. The exe