ASSAM KHATUN Vs. MAHMAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts necessary for adjudication of the question involved in this revision are - the petitioners in this revision viz. Mustt Asma Khatun and Mustt Hunsa Khatun as plaintiff No. 2 and 3 alongwith Md Safiqur Rahman Laskar as plaintiff No. 1 (Opposite party No. 3 herein) have filed a suit against the defendants Md. Mahmad Ali, Mustt Salema Bibi, (Opposite party No. 1 and 2 herein), seeking declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the Schedule-I land and for confirmation of possession and for injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the schedule-1 land and for possession of the land described in Schedule 2 and 3. The suit was registered as title Suit No. 145/97 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. l,Silchar.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioners that during pendency of the suit on the intervention of village elders "bichar" was held and the elders proposed that the suit land would be surveyed and merged and thereafter the defendants would vacate the land excess in their possession after harvesting the paddy. Three months time was given to the defendant to vacate the land in their possession. As per the proposal made by the elders an application No. 112/6 was filed on 7.8.98 by the plaintiff No. 1 in the TS No 145/97 for permission to withdraw the suit. Acting on the said application, the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The order dated 7.8.98 records

(3.) As the decision given by the village elders and agreed upon by he defendants, had not been acted upon by the Defendants, inasmuch as, they have not vacated their possession from the part of the suit land. The plaintiffs in these circumstances, instituted another suit before the Civil Judge No. 1 (Jr. Division) Silchar, being title suit No. 131/99, against the defendants for setting aside the order of dismissal passed on 7.8.98 in TS No. 145/97 praying for relief of restoration of the suit on file and claimed declaration that the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn was illegal, as because it was procured on false representation and playing fraud by the defendants upon the plantiff No. 1. The defendants submitted their written statement. The Court framed a preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the Title suit No. 131/99. On consideration, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 14.11.2000. However, the Court granted liberty to the plaintiffs either to apply before the Court in Civil Suit No. 145/97 for withdrawal of the application filed in the said suit or to prefer a revision for getting the order set aside, subject to bar of limitation. Thus the Court has permitted the plaintiffs to move an application for restoration of the suit to its original number and file application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit as withdrawn.