' According to the findings of the Civil Judge as well as the District Judge the defendants were tenants-at-will, However, applying section 142 of the Limitation Act, I had held the decisions of the Courts below to be sound and had dismissed this civil revision by order dated 1-7-1981.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now shown me the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases Jhangres v. Faizullah Khan and others (1), where it has been held that where the defendants are in possession as tenants under the plaintiffs. Article 142 of the Limitation Act has no application.
This decision was never quoted before me but since nobody is bound to engage a counsel and it is the duty of the Court to apply the correct law to the facts of the case, ignoring of the law declared by the Supreme Court is a valid ground for review. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. In this connection Mst. Khadija Bai and another v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2), is referred which lays down that there is authority for the proposition that a judgment contrary to law declared in earlier pronouncement of the High Court (or for that matter the Supreme Court) can be reviewed.
3. In view of the above, in exercise of powers under section 114 read with Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. I set aside my previous judgment and the civil revision is admitted to regular hearing.
4. Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile.
5. At this stage Mr. Khurshid Alam, Advocate has entered appearance and he accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The case will, therefore, be considered complete for the purpose of their service.
(1) 1974 SCM R 45 (2) PLD 1978 SC 96