1. We are constrained to hold that the District Judge was right.
2. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that certain lands to which he alleged he was entitled are in possession of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on account of a clerical or an arithmetical error or by mistake. The error or mistake is alleged to be a mistake in the decree of the Court of first instance in a former suit in which the lands in question were in dispute and in which a decree was passed by the Court of first instance which, for the purpose of the point we have to decree, we assume to have been not in accordance with the judgment of the Court.
3. The question as to the alleged error or mistake was raised for decision before the High Court on an application by way of revision to set aside an order of the District Judge to bring the decree-into conformity with the judgment, and it was held by this Court that there the case did not come within Section 206 of the Code of 1882, that is to say, it was held that there was no discrepancy between, the judgment and the decree.
4. This is an adjudication on the very question which is raised in the present suit.
5. It is not necessary for us to consider whether we should be prepared to follow Jogeswar Atha v. Ganga Bishnu Ghattack 8 C.W.N. 473. It seems to us that case is clearly distinguishable, as there had been no previous adjudication on the question of alleged error or mistake.
6. We dismiss the second appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs.