This is a revision against an appellate decision of the Divisional Commissioner Kotah, dated 9.7.54 in a suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute. 2 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The circumstances that give rise to this revision disclose a really interest-ing and equally revealing state of affairs. On 10.6.44 Bapulal plaintiff instituted a suit against Bohra Durga Shankar in the court of the Nazim, Jhalrapatan of the former Jhalawar State for recovery of possession over the land in dispute. This suit was decreed on 28.10.50 by the Tehsildar Jhalrapatan. The reasons that delayed the decision in the suit have been set out at length by the Tehsildar and generally speaking, they are that most of the officers who have had occasions to deal with the same instead of deciding the controversy themselves always took safety in transmitting the case to their superior officers with the result that there were numerous journeys that were performed by this file. An appeal against the decree was preferred by the defendant before the Collector, Jhalawar who by his decision, dated 27.5.51 remanded the case back to the trial court with the direction that Nanda was a necessary party to the suit and he ought to be added as a defendant. Bapulal went up in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kotah. Nanda had in the meanwhile died. The Commissioner however rejected the appeal on the ground that Nanda has left behind four sons and as they were necessary parties their presence was essential. A revision against this decision of the Commissioner dated 30.10.52 was filed in the Board. The Board by its decision dated 29.1.53 held that as Durga Shankar has conceded that as Nanda was not a necessary party to the suit, no useful purpose could be served by impleading him as a defendant The revision was allowed, the order passed by Commissioner was set aside and the Collector Jhalawar was directed to rehear the appeal in accordance with law. This appeal was accordingly heard by the Collector Jhalawar on 29.5.53 and he allowed the same on the grounds which may best be reproduced from the judgment itself— "On a careful review of the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, the conclu-sion to which I have reached is that the order of the learned Tehsildar is not maintainable or at any rate the decree passed by him is incapable of execution for two reasons. Firstly, the decree is not against any specific party and secondly, under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, the Tehsildar is not empowered to try a suit of this nature. Accordingly, I accept the appeal and set aside the order of the Tehsildar decreeing the suit of the plaintiff." Bapulal went up in appeal against this decision before the Commissioner who rejected the same on 9.7.54, agreeing with the Collector on the point of jurisdiction. A revision was filed before the Board and the same was rejected on 12.1.55. A review was applied for against this decision which was allowed and the decision of the Board, dated 12.1.55 was set aside and the revision was fixed for a fresh hearing. 3. We have no hesitation in observing that the learned Collector omitted to bestow that much attention upon the case as its nature demanded. He has satisfied himself merely with the observation that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 did not authorise the Tehsildar to take cognizance of a suit of this nature. It did not occur to the learned Collector that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act was enforced on 31st January, 1951 and that the Tehsildar decided the case about 3 months prior to this date, i.e., 28.10.50. The learned Collector should therefore have attempted to ascertain the law which was obtaining on 28.10.50 and should have determined with reference to the legal provisions contained in that law the point as to whether the Tehsildar was competent to decide the case or not. The other ground considered by the learned Collector is that the decree was incapable of execution inasmuch as the person against whom it was to be operative was not specifically named therein. This is obviously an omission but is not of such a serious nature as to deprive the plaintiff of his remedy. The other ground considered by the learned Collector is that the decree was incapable of execution inasmuch as the person against whom it was to be operative was not specifically named therein. This is obviously an omission but is not of such a serious nature as to deprive the plaintiff of his remedy. If there is any clerical mistake or omission, the court is competent to remove it in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. If the trial is incomplete the appellate court could have remanded the case for a further enquiry. The Collector, being the court of first appeal, ought to have examined the entire evidence carefully and should have come to his own findings on questions of fact. The appeal was on the other hand rejected on a preliminary point which was entirely baseless. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Commissioner, Kotah and the Collector, Jhalawar, and direct that the appeal preferred before the Collector Jhalawar be readmitted and disposed of afresh hearing the parties in accordance with law.