AMALENDU KUMAR BERA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the decree-holders/opposite parties and is directed against the order dated February 3, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Purba Medinipur in Civil Revision No.1 of 2011 arising out of the Order No.18 dated August 17, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.18 of 2010 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Execution Case No.27 of 2009.

(2.) The Title Suit No.483 of 1967 was decreed on contest on August 7, 1969 against the defendant/State declaring title of the plaintiff in the suit property and also granting permanent injunction against the defendant/State with regard to possession of the plaintiff in the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The State of West Bengal preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.653 of 1969 and the said appeal was dismissed on contest on August 13, 1970 thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the concerned learned Munsif and an application for execution of the said decree was filed in 2009 being the Title Execution Case No.27 of 2009 and in that application for execution, the State of West Bengal filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure. The said application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was converted into a misc. case being Misc. Case No.18 of 2010 which was dismissed on contest on August 17, 2010. Another application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. was filed subsequently and that application was rejected by the Executing Court. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated August 17, 2010, the State of West Bengal preferred a civil revision being Civil Revision NO.1 of 2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the Revisional Court, that is, the learned District Judge, Purba Medinipur by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the decree-holders.

(3.) Now, the question is whether the learned District Judge is justified in allowing the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.