Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This is to consider an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard the learned Advocates for both the parties. Perused the petition and the Affidavit-in- Opposition filed by the O.P. and the other materials on record.
(2.) Actually this present petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amulya Kumar Nandy dated 4.2.1991 in connection with the Second Appeal No. 884 of 1975. The learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest.
(3.) It is stated in the review petition that the High Court failed to consider the effect of acquisition of title of the defendants and also both the Courts failed to decide the case shifting the onus wrongly on the plaintiff. It is also stated that the High Court applied the case of Ambika Prosad v. Ram Dulal, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 605 without considering the said case law at all. It is also stated that during the communal riot in 1950 the Muslims bharatia having left the place, the thik a tenant Jaharlal Dey allowed the defendants to occupy the premises along with other refugees. It is also stated that at the time of the preparation of revisional record of rights the defendant Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 had recorded their name in respect of the premises but not in respect of the land where one Rajkumar Dey is the owner and Jaharlal Dey was the thika tenant. It is also stated that the O.Ps. never claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit property and on 28.7.1972 they admitted that they were lease- holder of the suit property which will be reflected from Exhibit 2(a). In fact the contents of the said exhibit has been incorporated in the petition. It is also stated that the High Court failed to consider that all the legal heirs of Krishna Seal had not contested and claimed adverse possession against the plaintiff and thus, the High Court made an error apparent on the face of the record when none of the defendants claimed jointly about. the adverse possession with respect to the occupation of the premises. It is further stated that the High Court made an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering exhibit 2(a).;