JUDGMENT Sir George Knox and Banerji, JJ. - The applicant in the case before us, Ram Lal, was plaintiff in the court below. He instituted a suit in the civil court for the ejectment of the defendants second party, as trespassers. They met the suit by a plea that they were tenants of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif very properly stayed his hand and required the defendants to institute a suit in the Revenue Court for a determination of the question raised by them. The defendants then went to the Assistant Collector and got from him a decision that they were the tenants of the plaintiff. In accordance with this decision the Munsif dismissed the suit on the 29th of April, 1909. At the time when he passed this order, an appeal was pending in the Court of the Commissioner from the order of the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner decided that the defendants were not tenants and this decision was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The Munsif ought to have waited until the final decision of the Revenue Court, and on hearing that the order of the Assistant Collector was under appeal, he should have waited still further. The plaintiff, armed with the decisions in his favour, applied to the successor of the Munsif for review of the order passed on the 29th of April, 1909. We do not understand why the plaintiff waited so long before he went to the Munsif. It is true that he came within ninety days of the decision of the Board of Revenue, but in matters of this kind applications for review should be put in as early as possible. The Munsif before whom the application came refused to entertain it, and we are asked to set aside his order on the ground that he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The question before us turns upon one point, namely, whether the decisions of the Commissioner and Board of Revenue can properly be held to be new and important matter within the meaning of order XLVII, rule 1. No judgment of this court which is exactly in point has been placed before us. There is, however, a judgment of the Bombay High Court in ILR 1889 13 330 (Bom.) which was approved of in the subsequent case of Waman Hari Deshpande Vs. No judgment of this court which is exactly in point has been placed before us. There is, however, a judgment of the Bombay High Court in ILR 1889 13 330 (Bom.) which was approved of in the subsequent case of Waman Hari Deshpande Vs. Hari Vithal Parulekar, (1906) 8 BOMLR 932 We cannot find that the view taken by the Bombay High Court has been disapproved of or dissented from by any of the other High Courts. The case before us is one in which we think that for the ends of justice we ought to allow a review, and acting upon the precedents quoted above, we allow the application, set aside the order of the Munsif, and send back the case to him with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number and to dispose of it according to law. We make no order as to costs.