PUSPALATA DAS ALIAS MOHARANA Vs. MURALIDHAR BHOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Civil Revision No. 195/99, the plaintiff has come up in revision under the following circumstances : She had filed Title Suit No. 398/96 for declaration of right, title and interest over the disputed property and for further declaration that the registered sale deed No. 4181 dated 27.12.1995 is null and void and for permanent injunction against the present opposite party and Bijayalaxmi Das as defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, he filed an application numbered as Misc. Case No. 379/96 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, CPC against the present opposite party for interim injunction. The trial Court by its order dated 28.9.1996 directed both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the 'C' schedule property which order was being continued from time to time. Subsequently, the suit including the application for injunction was transferred to the Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, for disposal. The trial Court had directed that the matter shall be placed on 19.3.1999, but on the basis of wrong impression, the Clerk -in -charge of the case of the petitioner thought that the case had been posted to 22.3.1999. Accordingly, the Misc. Case No. 379/96 was dismissed for default on 19.3.1999 due to non -taking of steps. The petitioner learnt about such dismissal on 22.3.1999 and thereafter filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4, read with Section 151, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 19.3.1999. The said application numbered as Misc. Case No. 60/99 having been rejected by the trial Court, the present Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) AT the time of entertaining the revision, an interim order was passed on 26.6.1999 directing status quo to be maintained and the said order has been subsequently continued from time to time.

(3.) THE dispute in Civil Revision No. 195/99 relates to the question as to whether Misc. Case No. 379/96 (which has been subsequently renumbered as Misc. Case No. 35/99) should be restored to file for consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has stated that the opposite party in his objection has clearly indicated that he does not want to forcibly evict the present petitioner from the disputed land and as a matter of fact, he has filed the connected suit, Title Suit No.536/ 96, for declaration of title and possession of the very same property and, as already indicated, the records in Civil Revision No. 147/98 arising out of the said suit have been called for.