PAHALI PANDA Vs. NIRANJAN KAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A title suit brought by one Saunti Panda in the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara was dismissed for default and an application under Order 9, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure was filed by him and it was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 153 of 1968. During the pendency of the said application Saunti died on 17 -8 -1968. Niranjan, Kamadeb and Dolagobinda filed an application to be substituted in place of the deceased on the ground that they were the heirs of the deceased being grandsons. This application was resisted by the opposite parties in the said proceeding and they contended that the persons who applied to be substituted were not the legal representatives. The genealogy itself was disputed.

(2.) AN enquiry was made by the learned trial Judge. Four witnesses were examined on one side and five on the other and some documents were also produced. In a long order the learned Munsif discussed the rival claims and ultimately came to hold that Pahali was not the legal representative and directed substitution of Niranjan Kar and two others in his place. Against this order the present Civil Revision has been directed.

(3.) THE learned Munsif has examined the evidence at considerable length. Mr. Sahu during the hearing of this revision emphasised upon certain errors of record committed by the trial Court. Those are as specified in grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In view of the contention raised I thought it necessary to scan the entire evidence particularly of the witnesses referred to and I am not in a position to hold that the ultimate conclusion of the learned trial Judge is vitiated. At any rate, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, a different conclusion cannot be reached on the question of the disputed genealogies. The conclusion of the learned trial Judge cannot also be said to be vitiated by any material irregularity. It is not disputed that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to make the enquiry in the manner be has done because such an enquiry is enjoined under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code.