Ram Chandra Agrawal v. Usman @ Md. Usman And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.181 of 2016 ====================================================== Ram Chandra Agrawal .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Usman @ Md. Usman & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 31-08-2016 Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath for the petitioner on the Interlocutory Application No.6715 of 2016. In view of the submission of learned Senior Counsel, this interlocutory application is allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased sole petitioner are substituted in place of the petitioner after deleting his name. They have already appeared by filing vakalatnama.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 passed by Munsif-I, Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No.32 of 1994 whereby the learned court below allowed the petition of the plaintiffsrespondents for re-examination of P.W.25 after recalling him as well as to adduce additional evidence.

It appears that the eviction suit was decreed. Civil Revision was filed by the tenant being Civil Revision No.531 of

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.181 of 2016 (4) dt.31-08-2016 2005. This civil revision was allowed by judgment dated 11.09.2013 by the High Court and while allowing the civil revision application matter was remanded to the trial court directing the court below to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law and as the suit is of the year 1994, the court below was directed to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The court below was further directed to take up the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same as early as possible but not later than six months.

The order of the High Court in civil revision application has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the S.L.P. filed by the landlord-respondent. The court below is now proceeding to decide the suit according to the direction of this Court in civil revision application, he filed the application for recall of P.W.25, which has been allowed by the court below. In my opinion, therefore, no case for interference in supervisory jurisdiction is made out and accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U