JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Under a registered deed of partition (Ext. 1) dated 9.9.1966. A Schedule properties fell to the share of the Plaintiff and B Schedule properties to the share of the Defendant. When the parties demarcated their respective shares it was noticed that the disputed land which had fallen to the share of the Plaintiff was in the cultivating possession of the Defendant. At that time there was betel crop on the land. The Defendant agreed to deliver possession of the disputed land to the Plaintiff by Asadha Purnima (21-7-1967') at the latest. As the Defendant did not deliver the land within the stipulated time Title Suit No. 82 of 1967 was filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, for recovery of possession. The learned Munsif held that Ext 1 was Executed on 20th of August 1966 and by the recital therein the Defendant was to deliver possession of the land to the Plaintiff within one year from the date of Execution. As the Defendant had been given the option to remain in possession of the suit land for one year from 208-1966, that is, till 20-8-1967, the suit for recovery of possession was dismissed on 20-9-1969 as premature as it had been instituted on 1-8-1967. The Plaintiff filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC for review of the judgment on the ground that the learned Munsif did not take into consideration Order 7, Rule 7, CPC where under the suit should have been decreed as it was not premature by the date of the judgment. The review application was registered as M.J.C. No. 197 of 1969. The Munsif dismissed this application on 22-12-1969 saying that no review lies. Against this order this civil revision has been filed. 2. The only point for consideration is whether the application for review is maintainable. 3. On the facts narrated above, it would be clear that the Defendant was to remain in possession of the disputed land, till 20th of August 167 at the latest and he was to part with the possession on any date within one year from the date of execution of Ext. 1. The suit was instituted on 18.1967 for recovery of Possession. 1. The suit was instituted on 18.1967 for recovery of Possession. The Plaintiff had therefore no cause of Action till 20th of August 1967; but after that date the Plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession and the Defendant had no defence to resist the suit for recovery of 'Possession. The question is whether the suit is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground that there was no cause of action for nineteen day still 20th of August 1967 though the judgment in Title Suit No. 82 of 1967 was delivered on 20.9.1969. The 'Plaintiff had therefore a cause of Action in between 20th of August 1967 and 20-9-1969. 4. Order 7 t Rule 7 CPC clearly meets contingencies of the aforesaid nature. It runs thus: Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the Plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not he necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the Defendant in his written statement. It would thus be seen that it was the duty of the Munsif to grant the relief of recovery possession as the cause of Action accrued subsequent to 20th of August 1967. It was not necessary for the Plaintiff to specifically bring the matter to the notice of the Court. The Court could have suo motu followed the elementary proposition of law which is intended to shorten litigation and advance the cause of justice. Doubtless the Court may not exercise such discretion where it would work out injustice to the adverse party. In this case on the undisputed facts the Defendant was to part with possession before 20th of August 1967. Thereafter he had no right to continue in possession of the disputed land. Even though the suit was premature by nineteen days, clear cause action accrued subsequent to 20th of August 167. The Court is to take notice of such subsequent events to give appropriate relief. The learned Munsif exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in not decreeing the suit by following the principle laid down in Order 7, Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The aforesaid conclusion however does not resolve the difficulty. The Court is to take notice of such subsequent events to give appropriate relief. The learned Munsif exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in not decreeing the suit by following the principle laid down in Order 7, Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The aforesaid conclusion however does not resolve the difficulty. It is next to be seen whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to the relief sought through a review application. 6. Order 47, Rule 1, CPC deals with review of judgments. So far as relevant it runs thus: Rule 1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face on the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of 'judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. 7. Without filing an appeal against the impugned decree in Title suit No. 82 of 1967 the Plaintiff has filed the review application. The application is supported on the ground that the learned Munsif overlooked to consider the clear provision of Order 7, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, and that such omission appeared on the face of the judgment and that the aforesaid omission was an error apparent on the face of the record or at any rate constituted a sufficient ground analogous to those mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 and that the Court was therefore not incompetent to reconsider the matter after judgment. 8. The aforesaid contention is directly covered by AIR 1949 106 (Federal Court) . In that particular case the appellate Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure. That was clear from a bare perusal of the judgment. 8. The aforesaid contention is directly covered by AIR 1949 106 (Federal Court) . In that particular case the appellate Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure. That was clear from a bare perusal of the judgment. Their Lordships held that the Court was competent to review the judgment and take into consideration the applicability of Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure. 9. It was indicated therein that there is no ground for review if a decision is erroneous in law. If the Court had decided a point and decided it erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on the face of the record or even analogous to it. When, however, the Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to Act in a particular way that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order 47; Rule 1. In paragraph 20 of the judgment their Lordships observed thus: x x x in fact there was an omission on the part of the Court to consider the clear provision or Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure, when the original judgment was passed; and such omission, which appears on the face of the judgment, would constitute a sufficient ground analogous to those mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court was not incompetent to reconsider the matter if it so desired. 10. Applying the aforesaid principle I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Munsif should have reviewed his judgment and decreed the suit by involving the principles of Order 7, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure. On a bare perusal of the judgment, it is clear that applicability of Order 7, Rule 7 was not at an considered, and the error is apparent on the face of the record. 11. In the result, the review application is allowed and so also the civil revision. The learned Munsif now would review his judgment in the light of Order 7, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure. 11. In the result, the review application is allowed and so also the civil revision. The learned Munsif now would review his judgment in the light of Order 7, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure. Though the opposite party has not appeared in this Court, the application is allowed with costs as he has resisted the suit and the review application without any semblance of right. Hearing Fee Rs. 50/-. Final Result : Allowed