JEEBANAMAYEE PATNAIK Vs. PADMABATI MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Revisions have been filed by the plaintiff. Since the orders impugned are inter-linked, all the Civil Revisions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Counsel for the petitioner is absent. The Counsel for opposite party is present. Since revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised suo motu, even though the Counsel for the petitioner is absent, 1 think it proper to dispose of the Civil Revision on merit, as after going through the orders. I find that the orders cannot be sustained.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that she is a tenant under the opposite party and she apprehends that she may be forcibly evicted from the disputed house without taking recourse to procedure established by law. The defendant in written statement has denied the allegation in the plaint and has filed a counterclaim seeking for recovery of possession of the disputed house on the ground that the plaintiff is a trespasser.