JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This case, to my mind, does not present any real difficulty. There was a sale under a decree : there was an application to set aside that sale : that application failed : on that failure, under sec. 312 of the Code, the Court was bound to pass an order confirming the sale. This was done, and a certificate was granted. It was subsequently discovered that the provisions of sec. 13 of the Bengal Tenancy Act had not been complied with, inasmuch as the landlord's fees had not been paid. It was the duty of the Court, before confirming the sale, to see that those fees had been paid. If there has been any default on the part of any one, it has been that of the Court. This mistake was discovered, and the purchaser now comes and makes an application,--erroneously as an application for review--asking that the sale may be confirmed after payment of the landlord's fees ; and the Court made an order directing that that should be done. It is contended, in effect, that the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order. That contention is not sustainable. It was the duty of the Court to confirm the sale after seeing that the landlord's fee had been paid. The Court failed in that. There is no limit of time within which an application must be made, if an application be necessary, for the confirmation of the sale, and no question of limitation arises. The Court has only done now what it ought to have done before, and no question of amending a decree or order, and no question of review really arises. There is nothing in the practice of the Court to prevent it from doing what it has done : and as has been pointed out by the Privy Council, it is the duty of the Court to be vigilant not to allow the act of the Court itself to do wrong to a suitor. 2. The appeal is misconceived and must be dismissed with costs, hearing fee five gold mohurs. Stevens, J. I concur.