SMT. SUMITRA DEVI Vs. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The revisionist feeling aggrieved with the order dated 13.10.2011 has preferred this revision.

(3.) First argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that benefit of Sec. 114 of Transfer of Property Act (for short "the Act") has been denied to the revisionist although an application was moved claiming benefit of the said provision in the year 2007. The said application remained pending and another application was also moved seeking time for filing written statement. Application for filing written statement was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 500.00 and the application of the revisionist for depositing the rent was kept pending. The suit proceeded and ultimately proceedings stood concluded after recording evidence and thereafter the application moved by the revisionist under Sec. 114 of the Act was pressed which came to be rejected by means of the impugned order. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that by elaborate finding given by this Court in the case of Asghar Ali Vs. Razzak Hussain and others, 2004 (1) ARC 411 dated 14.11.2003, , it has been held that benefit of Sec. 114 is available to the revisionist but in spite of that the trial court has proceeded to ignore the aforesaid aspect of the matter.