BIMAL KUMAR NOPANY Vs. AKHIL CHANDRA MOITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner/defendant praying for revision of order No. 43 dated 27.01.2000 passed by Smt. A. Roy Saraswati, Learned Civil Judge, 4th Court (Senior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 132A of 1994 by way of setting aside the same, inter alia on the ground that the learned Court below erred in law in not appreciating the true sprit of the order and passed an order which is contrary to the provision of the law.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party filed a title suit No. 132A of 1994 before Assistant District Judge, at Alipore, 4th Court against the defendant/petitioner for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant has paid the monthly rent of Rs. 3000/-. It is alleged by the defendant/petitioner that during the pendency of the suit filed an application under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 praying for a direction from the Court to allow the petitioner to deposit all arrear rent from December, 1983 to August, 1998. According to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- was deposited towards rent with the Income-Tax Authority in terms of the order of attachment issued by the Income-Tax authority. At the time of hearing of the said application it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff chose not to file any objection to the application of the defendant. It is further contended by the petitioner that the defendant is always ready and willing to pay the arrear rent and he also tendered arrear rent from his advocate-on-record but same was refused by the plaintiff.

(3.) MOREOVER, he referred to some decisions reported in 2009 (5) SCC 616, AIR 1953 SC 228. I have gone through the said decisions carefully. In my opinion the instant revision application is not a jurisdictional error. In my opinion there are errors contemplated relate either breach of some provisions of law or to material defect of procedure affecting the ultimate decisions and not to errors either of fact or of law after prescribed formalities even complied with. In other words the instant revisional application is not jurisdictional error so, revisional Court has every right to interfere with and the ruling cited by the learned Lawyer for the opposite party is not at all applicable in the instant case.