SANATAN BARIK Vs. PURNA CHANDRA BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None appears for the opposite party. Mr. Kar states that he could not find the address of the counsel for the opposite party, therefore, he could not intimate him. Since the name of the counsel is indicated in the cause list and he has not appeared either yesterday or today, therefore this revision will not be adjourned any further.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and this civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.

(3.) Defendants in the Court below are the petitioners against the order of appointment of receiver with respect to the suit property as per order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Title Suit No. 443 of 1998. Opposite party is the plaintiff in that suit. As noted in the impugned judgments and also it reveals from the copy of the plaint, which is produced for perusal, that the suit has been filed for a declaration that no title with respect to the suit land passed on to the father of the defendants or to the defendants on the basis of the four registered deeds, which were executed by the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff those four documents were executed by the father of the plaintiff with a view to put that landed property as security for the loan from the defendants' father and the vender had no intention to alienate that property by executing and registering the sale deeds. It is further alleged in that plaint that when the father of the defendants has obtained four registered sale deeds in a clandestine manner, therefore, those sale deeds should be set aside, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be declared or in the alternative, possession be recovered in his favour.