JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - I am by no means convinced that there are any grounds on which this application for revision ought to have been entertained at all. The District Court held, after consideration of the question, that there was sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C., for granting this application for review. It has not been suggested to me that in coming to that decision the District Court did not apply its mind to the matters of fact before it, or to the law applicable to this particular question of review, and therefore it seems that its decision cannot be agitated on an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. Where a Court has jurisdiction to determine a question and it determines that question, it cannot be said that it has acted illegally or with material irregularity because it has come to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law: Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1885) 11 Cal. 6. But however be that as it may, I am convinced that the decision of the District Court was on the facts corrects.

2. It appears that at the original hearing of the suit before the township Court the plaintiff in evidence made a mistake as to the year in which he had made certain advances to the defendant. He said that he made these advances in 1929 and 1930, whereas the actual years were 1928 and 1929. This mistake, it is now admitted on both sides, was due to the fact that he did not refer to his note-books, in which the details of these transactions had been recorded, at the time that he gave his evidence. Owing to the mistake in his deposition as to the dates of these advances his suit was dismissed. Unfortunately, owing to the very bad way in which the suit was conducted before the township Court, these note-books were not put in evidence as exhibits at the original hearing. Had they been brought on the record, there would, without doubt, have been an error apparent on the face of the record on which the application subsequently made to the township Court for review must have been allowed. Because the note-books were not brought on to the record, such a mistake apparent on the record did not, of course, exist. But on appeal the learned District Judge held, and rightly held, in my opinion, that this mistake in the deposition of the plaintiff (which became apparent on examination of his note-books, which were put in evidence when the application for review was heard), was a sufficient reason for allowing the application for review. On behalf of the present applicant I have been referred to the well-known case of Chhajju Ram v. Nehi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 112, in which their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the word1 "any other sufficient reason" mean any reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously.

3. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the reason now alleged, namely the mistake in the plaintiff's evidence, is not analogous to the discovery of new and important matter or evidence. Certainly that is so, but I cannot think of any situation which could be more analogous to an error apparent on the face of the record, for as I have said, had the note-books been put in evidence, as they should have been, the error apparent on the face of the record would have been there. Consequently, my conclusion is that the appellate judgment of the District Court was correct, and this application fails on both grounds and is dismissed with costs, advocate's fee three gold mohurs.