SUSHIL KUMAR SUREKA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Prasad Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite parties at length for final disposal.

(2.) THIS civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2005. Mr. Prasad submitted that the said Misc. Case could not and should not have been registered. He placed the following facts before this Court.

(3.) AFTER Awadhesh Kumar Singh became unsuccessful repeatedly as aforesaid, his son Santosh Kumar Singh -opposite party, herein, filed a petition in the said execution case, claiming through his father. Such objection was also rejected on 17.11.2003, against which he filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2003. After considering the entire matter, the appeal was dismissed. It was, inter alia, held that the opposite party -Santosh Kumar Singh has no separate or independent title from that of his father Awadhesh Kumar Singh and therefore, he is equally bound by the orders passed against his father; and that his father was claiming on the basis of a purported oral sale; and that the suit filed by the father of the opposite party was pending. Against such order, the opposite party filed a civil revision being Civil Revision No. 146 of 2006. After hearing the parties, the said civil revision was dismissed on 24.2.2005. It was found that the courts below had discussed the cases and materials available on record and passed the orders supported by reasons and have exercised jurisdiction properly and legally. It was further found that there was no error or illegality in exercising such jurisdiction. However, it was observed that it will be open to the petitioner therein (opposite party herein) to seek any other remedy available to him under the provisions of law. Then again, the opposite party filed an objection under Order 21 Rule, 98, 99, 100 and 101 C.P.C. raising similar pleas which had been rejected in the earlier objections filed by him and his father repeatedly, but the said Misc. Case has been admitted mainly on the ground that delivery of possession has already been effected and the misc. case is pending for hearing.