MOIMUNNESSA Vs. FAIZUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was once decided by this Court on 10.2.84 it was stated that the appellant could prefer objection relate to the report of the Commissioner, appointed by the Court before the Collector to whom the decree had been referred to effect partition, it may be stated that the entire controversy relates to the question as to whether the objection to the commissioner's report has to be filed before the Collector to the civil court, which had passed the decree. It may be pointed out that the suit relates to partition of landed property after which the separate estate would be liable for an annual amount of revenue less than five rupees.

(2.) After disposal of the appeal on 10.2. 84, the appellant filed a review application which came to be allowed on 23.11.84. The learned Judge allowing the same stated that the previous judgment passed in this appeal shall be reviewed by this Court.

(3.) Sri Senapati has submitted that this Court had earlier stated that the objection to the Commissioner's report would be filed before the Collector in view of its observation in para 13 that "it has not been pointed out or there is no material on record to find that the present case is under the exception envisaged under section 154(1)(e) of the Regulation". Mr. Senapati submits that this was an apparent error inasmuch as there were materials on record to show that the case attracted the aforesaid exception inasmuch as the result of the partition would have been to form a separate estate liable for an annual amount of revenue less than five rupees. It is on this ground that the revenue authorities had earlier refused to entertain the case of partition and the matter came before the civil court.