ORDER Akram, C.J. - On an application u/s 174, Clause (3), Bengal Tenancy Act, by the judgment-debtor Misc. Case No. 155 of 1946 came to be started. This was disposed of on 22nd April 1947 when the following order was passed: Miscellaneous Case be allowed on contest with cost and pleader's fee at Rs. 4 on the condition of Petitioner's depositing decretal dues with cost of execution by 30th April 1947. On the Petitioner's making the deposit the sale will be set aside. If the Petitioner fails to make the deposit within the time allowed Misc. Case shall stand dismissed and the sale will remain confirmed. On the said date, however, namely 30th April 1947 an application was filed by the Petitioner for extension of time. This application, was rejected on 1st May 1947 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed for payment by its order dated 22nd April 1947. Another application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, was thereupon made on 10th May 1947. This application also was rejected on 27th September 1947 on the ground that the application u/s 174(3) had been finally disposed of already and the application under Order 47, Code of Civil Procedure, was, therefore, incompetent. In that view of the matter the other points in respect of the said application and the merits thereof were not gone into. It is against this order that the judgment-debtor, the applicant for review obtained the present rule. 2. In the petition here, upon which the rule was issued, it has been stated that the order dated 22nd April 1947 was passed in the Chamber without the knowledge of the Petitioner and without reference to his lawyer; that the Petitioner was a poor cultivator and lived nearly 35 miles away from the town of Comilla, wherein the Court was situated, that the Petitioner had no intimation by the pleader of the order passed by the Court; that the Petitioner had deposited the amount in the treasury on 12th May 1947 where the said amount was still lying. It is now urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the view taken by the Court below that the application for review of the order dated 22nd April 1947 was incompetent and could not be entertained cannot be supported, and the decisions in the cases of Syed Muhammed Asraf Ali Vs. Nabejan Bibi and Another, AIR 1939 Cal 581 and Girish Chandra Das Vs. Sm. Annadamoni and Another, AIR 1939 Cal 309 are relied upon in support. 3. It seems to me that the contention put forward by the learned advocate for the Petitioner is well founded and that the Court in a case of this nature has authority to grant relief against forfeiture upon a proper application being made to it. The right of forfeiture in such cases is in my opinion, not beyond the scope of the application of the principle of equitable relief. In my view, the application under Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, is not, therefore, incompetent and the Court ought to have considered whether on the merits the application should have been allowed and the Petitioner given a reasonable time within which to make the payment. I accordingly set aside the decision of the learned Munsif and send back the case to be disposed of on the merits in accordance with law. 4. The Rule is made absolute with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.