MALLI PADHANUNI Vs. SAMBARU PODHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER a registered deed of partition (Ext. 1) dated 9.9.1966. A Schedule properties fell to the share of the Plaintiff and B Schedule properties to the share of the Defendant. When the parties demarcated their respective shares it was noticed that the disputed land which had fallen to the share of the Plaintiff was in the cultivating possession of the Defendant. At that time there was betel crop on the land. The Defendant agreed to deliver possession of the disputed land to the Plaintiff by Asadha Purnima (21 -7 -1967') at the latest. As the Defendant did not deliver the land within the stipulated time Title Suit No. 82 of 1967 was filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, for recovery of possession. The learned Munsif held that Ext 1 was Executed on 20th of August 1966 and by the recital therein the Defendant was to deliver possession of the land to the Plaintiff within one year from the date of Execution. As the Defendant had been given the option to remain in possession of the suit land for one year from 208 -1966, that is, till 20 -8 -1967, the suit for recovery of possession was dismissed on 20 -9 -1969 as premature as it had been instituted on 1 -8 -1967. The Plaintiff filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment on the ground that the learned Munsif did not take into consideration Order 7, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure where under the suit should have been decreed as it was not premature by the date of the judgment. The review application was registered as M.J.C. No. 197 of 1969. The Munsif dismissed this application on 22 -12 -1969 saying that no review lies. Against this order this civil revision has been filed.

(2.) THE only point for consideration is whether the application for review is maintainable.

(3.) ORDER 7 Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure clearly meets contingencies of the aforesaid nature. It runs thus: