Chopra, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for review of our Appellant in R.S.A. No. 62 of 1950 dismissing Naurata Singh Defendant's appeal in a suit decreed against him by the courts below. Naurata Singh originally presented this application for grant of a certificate under Article 133, Constitution of India for further appeal to the Supreme Court. One of the points raised in the application was that certain previous decisions between the parties operated as res judicata. This depends upon the question whether the land which was the subject matter of those decisions was the same which is the subject matter of the present litigation. In the appeal before us we found that the same was not established. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contended that while arriving at this conclusion we had ignored certain important documents which were on the record. Considering this to be more a ground for review of our Appellant than for a certificate for further appeal, we allowed the' petition to be treated as one for review and issued notice of the same to the Respondents.
(2.) AT the hearing of the application, our attention was drawn to certain copies of the revenue records, which according to S. Dara Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, strongly go to prove 'identity of the land. We had not looked into these documents nor did we make any mention of them In our order, because they were not relied upon or referred to by counsel of either party at the time of hearing of the appeal. In order to be', able to understand what weight should be given to these documents, we called for the records of the two previous cases brought by Mst. Jeoni (copies of Appellant. of which were on the record) and also called upon the Petitioner to produce a copy of the mutation referred to in the column of remarks In jamabundi 1988 -89. The copy of the mutation was produced and admitted, but report of the Record -keeper showed that the record of the two cases, that were sent for, had been -destroyed. The counsel produced a copy of an entry from the register of destroyed files show -ing that the file of the third case brought by Mst. Jeonl had also been destroyed. Mr. Puran Chand, counsel for the Respondents, then wanted time to produce certain documents in rebuttal. Time was granted but he did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The documents to which our attention has .now been drawn have an important bearing on the case and, as will be presently seen, they conclusively go to show that the land for possession of which Mst. Jeoni brought the previous suits was the same which is the subject matter of the present litigation. It is further evident that the three suits brought by Mst. Jeoni were against the present Defendants or their predecessors -in - interest, She failed in each of them. It is said that such an important documentary evidence was not' brought to our notice and referred to by either party when the appeal was heard, but all the same since the documents were already there, the error is apparent on the face of the record. An error of the kind whether it occurs by reason of the counsel's mistake or it creeps in by reason of an oversight on the part of the court can al - ways be a good ground for exercise of the jurisdiction of the court to reverse its decision.
(3.) RECORDS of the suits brought by Mst. Jeoni have admittedly been destroyed. Copies of the Appellants in two of them, which had already been, obtained, have been produced by the Defendants. the of the suits No. 45 was brought by Mst. Jeoni against Jaimal Singh son of Khem Singh on 11 -6 - 1985. It was for possession of 11 bighas and 5 biswas out of khatoni No. 25 in khatas Nos. 7 and 8. The Second suit No. 47, was instituted by Mst. Jeoni on the same day against Ram Singh son of Khem Singh'and related to 11 bighas 16 biswas out of the same khatoni No. 25 of khatas 7 and 8. The third suit No. 46, as is apparent from the copy A.I.R. from the register of destroyed files, was also on behalf of Mst. Jeoni and was instituted against Kartar Singh and Mukhtar Singh sons of Deva Singh. This suit, like Ors. , was for possession of land, but the register does not give its area: it is, however, mentioned that the suit was dismissed on 15 -9 -1985. The other two suits also were dismissed on the same day. Mutation No. 1 sanctioned in favour of the Appellants on 27th Poh, 198G, copy of which has now been produced, further makes it clear that Mst. Jeoni had brought three suits Nos. 45 to 47 and failed. It was on the basis of decisions in these suits that the land now in dispute was mutated in the names of the . successful Defendants. It may here be mentioned that Khem Singh had three sons Ram Singh, Deva Singh and Jaimal Singh. Ram Singh was one of the Defendants in the present case and on his death his son Naurata Singh and Isher Singh were impleaded in his place. Kartar Singh and Mukhtar Singh Defendants are the sons of Deva Singh. Jaimal Singh appears to have died leaving no issue. The three suits by Mst. Jeoni were thus against the present Defendants or their predecessor -in -interest: The land in each suit was described as l/3rd of khatoni No. 25 of khatas Nos. 7 and 8. Jamabandi of 1984 -65 (Ex. PC) mentions the field Nos. of this khatoni No. 25 and gives its total area as 35 bighas and 7 biswas. Mst. Jeoni is mentioned as its owner and Deva Singh and Ram Singh sons of Khem Singh are shown as persons in posses sion of the land as tenants. Fresh settlement appears to have taken place in the year 1984 -86 and that obviously gave rise to a change in the field numbers. Misal Haqiat prepared during this settlement mentions the old as well as the new field numbers and Ex. PB is a copy from this Misal Haqiat. On a comparison of the two documents Ex. PB and PC we find that each of the field Nos. of the old settlement representing the land that was in dispute in the previous cases tallies with the field numbers, in the new settlement of the land now in dispute. The area which according to the old measurements in pucca bighas was 35 -7 came to, 103 -7 in kham bighas. As before, Mst. Jeoni was mentioned as the owner of this land and Ram Singh and Jaimal Singh sons of Khem Singh and Kartar Singh and Mukhtar Singh sons of Deva Singh were shown as tenants under her. The present suit was filed in the year 2002 and the suit land was described as comprising khatonis Nos. 96 -99, 100 to 103 of khewat No. 34 its area being 108 bighas 17 biswas. Ex. PA Jamabandi for the year 2001 -02 gives the field numbers of this land and they are the same as mentioned in the jamabandi of 1984 -85 Ex. PB, and which tally with the field numbers of the prior settlement. These copies from the revenue records, to which our attention has now been drawn, leave no doubt that the land in dispute in the suits brought by Mst. Jeoni was the same which forms the subject -matter of the present litigation. The matter is further made clear by the mutation sanctioned on 27th Poh, 1986. Ram Singh on the basis of the adverse decisions in the three suits of Mst. Jeoni applied to the Revenue authorities for her name as owner of the land being expunged and his name and those of his brors . being entered in her place. The mutation was allowed and Ram Singh and Jaimal Singh sons of Khem Singh and Kartar Singh and Mukhtar Singh sons of Deva Singh were ordered to be entered as owners of the land. Effect to this order was given, and that explains the entry of their names as owners of the land in Ex. PA, jama -bandi of 2001 -02. This decides the question of identity of the land in dispute in the three suits of Mst. Jeoni and the one that is now in dispute. I have, therefore, no hesitation to review our previous decision and to hold that the three suits Which were decided against Mst, Jeoni in 1985 related to the land which is the subject -matter of the present litigation.;