SMT. UMA DEVI Vs. SMT. PRABHABATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for review of judgment/order dated 20.02.2015 passed in Civil Revision No. 814 of 2004 by which and whereunder a Single Bench of this court dismissed the above stated Civil Revision No. 814 of 2004 on merit in absence of petitioner.

(2.) The original opposite party no. 1 had filed title suit bearing Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the disputed premises on the ground that he as well as his wife had purchased the disputed premises from mother in law of petitioner through two registered sale deeds and got possession of the suit premises but petitioner and opposite party no. 2 forcibly entered into the suit premises and took possession of the same. The petitioner, too, had filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 against her mother in law for specific performance of contract and the original opposite party no. 1 as well as his wife were also party to the aforesaid Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 being subsequent purchaser of the disputed premises. However, in Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 petitioner filed a petition under Section 10 CPC praying therein to stay the proceeding of aforesaid suit and the learned court below was pleased to stay the proceeding of Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 till disposal of Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 vide order dated 17.11.1998. The aforesaid Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2000 holding that petitioner was in possession of suit premises. The original opposite party no. 1 had preferred an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 29 of 2000 and the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2000 passed in Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 passing impugned judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 against which second appeal bearing Second Appeal No. 04 of 2002 has been preferred by the petitioner before this court and the said second appeal has been admitted for hearing. However, during pendency of aforesaid Second Appeal No. 04 of 2002, the original opposite party no. 1 filed a petition before the court below for recall of order of stay passed in Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 and the learned court below passing order dated 24.05.2004 recalled its previous order dated 17.11.1998 by which the trial of Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 had been stayed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.05.2004 passed by the court below in Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 by filing Civil Revision No. 814 of 2004 which was dismissed by this court passing judgment/order under review.

(3.) The petitioner has sought review of judgment/order dated 20.02.2015 on two grounds. Firstly, this court committed an error apparent on the face of record by holding that Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 as well as Title Appeal No. 29 of 2000 were dismissed whereas in fact, Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 was decreed on 15.05.2000 and, therefore, it is obvious that the learned Single Judge, who dismissed Civil Revision No. 814 of 2004, committed mistake while taking note of facts of the case. Secondly, this court committed an error on the face of the record by holding that Title Suit No. 248 of 1995 and Title Suit No. 55 of 1996 are substantially different whereas as a matter of fact, in both the aforesaid suits, the question of possession was involved. Thirdly, this court committed error in deciding the Civil Revision No. 814 of 2004 on merit in absence of petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2 and lastly, this court committed error in passing impugned order dated 20.02.2015 against a dead person because it was brought to the notice of this court that original opposite party no. 1 died during pendency of aforesaid civil revision but without impleading the legal representative of opposite party no. 1 this court passed the impugned judgment/order dated 20.02.2015.