TAPAN KUMAR PAL Vs. S MAZUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant) against the Order dated 18th July, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Hooghly in Civil Revision case No. 9 of 1992 before him, affirming the order dated 12th December, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd court at Serampur, in Title suit No.334 of 1989, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.

(2.) The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the revisional application, may shortly be shortly as follows:-

(3.) During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had filed an application for local inspection of the suit premises on 5 / 11 / 90 on the 11 points stated therein. The learned munsif by Order dated 6-12-90 had allowed the plaintiffs application for local inspection in part on points Nos. 1 to 4,7 and 8 to 10, and had refused the prayer for local inspection on points Nos. 5, 6 & 11 of the plaintiffs relevant application therefor. The learned Munsif having refused to allow the plaintiffs prayer for local inspection on the aforesaid points Nos. 5,6 and 11 the latter had moved the revisional application before the lower revisional court under section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) against the aforesaid Order of the learned Munsif. The learned District Judge by his Order dated 28 / 01 / 1991 had allowed the plaintiff's revisional application without issuing any notice upon the defendant/opposite party. The defendant -tenant had also moved the learned District Judge in revision against the aforesaid Order of the learned Munsif dated 6-12-1990 and the learned District Judge by his Order dated 11-2-91 had also allowed the defendant's revisional application in part. In view of the aforesaid two incongruous Orders passed by the learned District Judge oft 28 / 01 / 91 had 11 / 02 / 91 the plaintiff had moved the learned District Judge for correction / reconciliation of the aforesaid two orders passed by him. The learned District Judge by his order dated 23-08-91 had then vacated the aforesaid two orders passed by him on 28 / 01 / 91 as also the Order dated 6-12-90 passed by the learned Munsif and had directed the learned Munsif to dispose of the plaintiff's relevant application for local inspection filed on 5-11-90 in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein. The learned District Judge could not conceivably have corrected the Orders passed by him on 28-01-91 and 11-02-91 the way he did. as it was incompetent for him to do so according to law. However that may be, the order passed by the learned District Judge on 23-08-91 not having been challenged by any of the parties, stood: and the learned Munsif had proceeded to dispose of the plantiff's relevant application for local inspection filed an 5-11-90 in terms of the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge. The said application was set down for hearing by the learned Munsif on 12 /12 / 91 a fresh application had been filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as second application on almost the some points, as stated in the earlier application filed an 5-1-90 (hereinafter referred to as the first application). The said second application filed by the plaintiff on 9-12-91 was fixed for hearing by the learned Munsif on 12-12-91. 12-12-91 thus came to be fixed by the learned Munsif for hearing of the aforesaid two application for local inspections filed by the plaintiff. On the date fixed for hearing of the said two applications (12 / 12 / 91) the learned Advocate for the plaintiff had endorsed on the first application filed by him "Not pressed" by his dated signature thereon. The learned Munsif, in the aforesaid circumstances, without disposing of the plaintiffs first application. appears to have allowed the plaintiffs second application for local inspection on all points by passing an Order on 12-12-91. Being aggrieved by the Order so passed by the learned Munsif the defendant had moved a revisional application before the learned. District Judge under section 115A of the code. The learned Additional District Judge concerned by his impugned Order dated 18/07/92 had affirmed the Order passed by the learned Munsif on 12/12/91 for the reasons recorded at length therein.