ANIMA MISHRA Vs. S VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is by the plaintiff -petitioner against the order dated 9.11.1994 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar allowing the petition of the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, thereby restoring the suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) THE plaintiff -petitioner's case is, one S.L. Narasingham, husband of opposite party No. 1, and father of opposite parties 2 to 4 entered into an agreement on 4.9.1982 with the plaintiff to sell his land and house for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/ - and put the plaintiff into possession. He agreed to execute the registered sale -deed after obtaining permission from the Government. But unfortunately before he could do this, he died on 21.6.1984. When the petitioner approached the opposite parties, they refused to execute the sale -deed and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) MR . Mahadev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff submitted that the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar allowing the petition for restoration is based on no evidence, therefore the order is illegal. Mr. A. Mukherji, learned counsel for defendant -opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, strenuously urged that a revision is not maintainable since it cannot be said that the Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested on it or refused to exercise the jurisdiction so vested, nor according to Mr. Mukherji, the Court committed any illegality in conducting the proceeding with material irregularity. Rather, according to him. from the circumstances proved the Court was satisfied that defendant No. 1 had been able to prove sufficient cause, that is, her illness in not attending the Court on the date filed. The rival contention need examination.