Pandrang Row, J.
1. The District Judge of East Godavari heard arguments in A.S. No. 129 of 1930 on his file on 27th, 28th and 29th March, 1933, a reference was thereupon made to the Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram, about the value of the suit properties and on receipt of his report the appeal was posted for hearing regarding the question of Court-fee to 21st July, 1933 and orders were reserved. On 14th August, 1933, the District Judge pronounced judgment allowing the appeal with costs. The very next day the respondents applied under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to vacate the judgment and rehear the appeal on the ground that judgment had been given without hearing their Counsel fully. The learned District Judge in his order, dated 30th August, 1933, allowed the application on the ground that he had given judgment under the mistaken impression that the appeal had been fully heard.
2. It is contended in revision that the learned District Judge had no power to allow the application. There is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes the procedure to be followed by a Court when it discovers that judgment has been pronounced by it under the mistaken belief that both parties had been fully heard, and in the absence of such specific provision the Court must necessarily have recourse to its inherent powers in order to remedy the mistake. It is a duty which the Court has to perform ex debito justitiae in order to satisfy its judicial conscience. It is with the object of enabling Courts to perform their duties in contingencies of this kind, i.e., when their mistakes have led to injustice, that their inherent powers are preserved intact by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am therefore of opinion that the District Judge had inherent power to allow the application made to him by the respondents and was right in exercising it.
3. The revision petition must therefore fail, and it is dismissed with costs.