SUBIMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. SURJYA KUMAR MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order no.40 dated May 31, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Misc. Case No.3 of 2004 arising out the judgment and ex parte decree by order no.172 dated November 24, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.22 of 1981.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted the Title Suit being T. S. No.22 of 1981 against the defendants/opposite party nos.5 to 9 for declaration and recovery of possession and also for injunction.

(3.) THE property was purchased during the pendency of the earlier suit being Title Suit No.22 of 1981. THE learned Trial Judge has come to a finding that the petitioners of the misc. case have been able to show sufficient cause for delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and as such, he allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. after condoning the delay. Since her findings are based on evidence on record and such findings are not perverse, I am of the view that this revisional Court is not in a position to analyze the evidence in details. Though misc. appeal lies, the petitioner did not prefer to file any misc. appeal.