MOTI KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. MD. HABIBUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has arisen out of the order, dated 13.12.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1 Kamrup in TS No. 116/98, rejecting the petitioner -defendants' application made under 0 26 Rule 9 of the CPC seeking local investigation.

(2.) IN a nutshell, material facts and various stages, which have led to the present revision, may be narrated as follows :

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, what attracts my eyes, most prominently is that the defendants admit that they were tenants in respect of the land under the deceased father of the plaintiff. What the defendants dispute is that the house, which stands on the suit land, was constructed by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the structures standing on the suit land were constructed by the defendants and belong to them. In other words, while admitting their status as tenants in respect of the suit land, the defendants dispute the factum of tenancy as far as the house or the structures standing on the suit land is concerned. There is absolutely no indication from the written statement of the defendants that the identity of the suit land was disputed and/or questioned by the defendants.