LINGARAJ ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners in a suit for declaration of title obtained a decree from the competent Civil Court. Basing on the said judgment and decree, they filed Mutation Case No.1978 of 2001 before the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar. The said Mutation Case having not been attended to, being aggrieved by the inaction of the Tahasildar, the petitioner approached this Court previously in W.P.(C) No.14974 of 2005. This Court by order dated 05.02.2007 disposed of the said writ application directing as follows :

(3.) DR . Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahasildar could not have abated the Mutation Case by stating that it has to wait till the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar passes an order in the Misc. Cases filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. He further points out that the Tahasildar instead of mentioning that the said petition filed by the State (defendant) is an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. has wrongly mentioned it to be M.C. Appeal Case No.12/04, whereas the same has been numbered as C.M.A. No.12/04, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar filed by the defendant -State to set aside the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No.209/88. The above submission with regard to the error in recording the number of the case is correct as the Tahasildar has wrongly mentioned the case number as M.C. Appeal Case No.12/04 in stead of CMA No.12 of 2004.