JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this application moved on behalf of Mst. Chameli Bai and others (the applicants) under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) are as under:- 2. A suit for ejectment was filed by the non-applicant Shambhulal Goyal against the applicants on the ground, inter-alia, of default in payment of rent with the allegations that the applicants had committed a default on the earlier occasion also and had been given benefit of sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act) in the earlier suit and had again committed default by not paying the rent due from 1-11-1978 to 31-8-1979. The suit was contested by the applicants. The learned trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the Parties, vide the judgment dated 3-5-1988 passed in civil suit No. 26/80, decreed the suit holding that the case had been proved to be of second default. The appeal filed by the applicants was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Karauli, Camp at Hindaun city, who, vide the judgment dated 18-12-1990 passed in civil appeal No. 16/90, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court and remanded the case to the learned trial court with a direction to hold an enquiry whether the applicants had committed the first default and the case thus was of second default. Feeling aggrieved, the non-applicant approached this court by filing an appeal against the order of remand. The appeal was heard by S.N. Bhargava, J. who, vide the judgment dated 9-7-1991, held that in the present case the appellant-non-applicant had produced on record the documentary evidence in regard to the proceedings of the earlier suit besides making his own statement on oath-to prove that the applicants had committed the default in payment of rent on the earlier occasion also and they were given benefit as they had deposited the rent in those proceedings, but instead of remanding the case to the learned first Appellate court for deciding the appeal on merits, the appeal against the order of remand was accepted and the decree of the learned trial court was confirmed. In these circumstances, this application has been moved on behalf of the four applicants, who were respondents in the appeal decided by S.N. Bhargava, J. 3. In these circumstances, this application has been moved on behalf of the four applicants, who were respondents in the appeal decided by S.N. Bhargava, J. 3. In this application it has been stated that the appeal was against the order of remand which was under challenge and even in the prayer made in the memorandum of appeal it had been prayed that the order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge be set aside and the learned First Appellate Court be directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits and that even in the order passed by S.N. Bhargava, J. only this point has been dealt with. These facts are not disputed by Shri Goyal, the learned counsel for the non-applicant, but he has opposed this application on the ground that it has been filed with an inordinate delay and in the meanwhile the decree has already been executed and nothing remains to be done by the courts. 4. Once it cannot be disputed that the only question before the court was whether the order of remand was to be upheld or set-aside and the said question was decided by this court, if this court made any order which was beyond the scope of the appeal it can be said to be a mistake on the part of this court and it is settled law that nobody should be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the court. There is no period of limitation for pointing out the mistake of the court and even if because of the mistake of the court benefit has been availed of by the non-applicant by executing the decree and taking possession of the shop in dispute, this court is not debarred from giving the relief by correcting its own order as if successful in the appeal the applicants would be able to seek their remedy of restitution or otherwise, as advised. The objection of Shri Goyal is, therefore, repelled. 5. The objection of Shri Goyal is, therefore, repelled. 5. Consequently, while allowing this application, it is directed that the order dated 9-7-1991 passed by S.N. Bhargava, J. in the last para should be read as under : "For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 18-12-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karauli Camp at Hindaun City is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned first Appellate Court for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the parties." 6. The application stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******