MAHITOSH BISWAS Vs. CHAMPA KUMARI SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS M.J.C. application has been filed for re -hearing of Second Appeal No. 200 of 1992 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.10.1997.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff -opposite party filed Title Suit No. 10/20 of 1986/90 for eviction of defendant, Dr. Mahendra Nath Biswas, on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal need of the suit premises. The said suit was decreed on contest by the trial court. The defendant filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree and the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff -opposite party filed Second Appeal No. 200 of 1992. The said appeal was admitted on 13.5.1993. Since the sole respondent, Dr. Mahendra Nath Bishwas, appeared through counsel, Mr. Chitra Gupta Prasad, no notice was ordered to be issued. During the pendency of the second appeal a petition for substitution of legal heirs of Dr. Mahendra Nath Biswas was filed on the ground that the sole respondent died. The said substitution petition was allowed on 13.5.1994 and his heirs as mentioned in the substitution petition were substituted. An order was passed for issue of notice to the substituted heirs. A petition was also filed that Indu Mati Bishwas, widow of Dr. Mahendra Nath Bishwas and Neelima Bagchi, daughter of Dr. Mahendra Nath Bishwas, the substituted heirs, died and as such prayer was made for substitution of their legal heirs. On 22.6.1994 the appellant in the second appeal filed a substitution petition for substitution of legal heirs of Mahitosh Bishwas, the substituted heir of sole respondent Dr. Mahendra Nath Bishwas, on the ground that he died on 9.3.1994. The said petition was affidavited by the husband of the plaintiff -opposite party. The said petition was allowed on 7.8.1995. On 9.8.1995 order was passed to issue notice to the substituted heirs of Mahitosh Bishwas. Thereafter, Second Appeal No. 200 of 1992. was placed for hearing. The court heard learned counsel for the parties and disposed of the appeal vide judgment dated 16th October, 1997.

(3.) THE opposite party filed a petition that the M.J.C. petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have suppressed the material facts. The petitioners had filed Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P. (Civil) No. D1255/98 before the Supreme Court against the judgment passed in the second appeal which has, been dismissed on 26.10.1998. The said fact has been suppressed and as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.