TOUFIQUE UDDIN, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India concerning the impugned order dated 12.04.2013 passed in Other Suit No.13 of 2008 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division -I) at Port Blair rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for recalling.
(2.) THE short background involved in this revision is that the opposite party/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for eviction and recovery of possession. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement specifically contending that he is not the tenant under the opposite party/plaintiff but he is in occupation of the land in question by dint of a sale agreement, entered into by and between the opposite party/plaintiff and the petitioner/defendant. Further he has examined the witnesses and the case was fixed for DWs. The petitioner/defendant filed his examination -in -chief. Cross examination was started and on the second day of cross examination due to two questions asked together the petitioner/defendant was confused and answered in "yes". The evidence was adduced on 3rd April, 2013 and the defendant was not well on the said date as he was suffering from chest pain. On 7th April, 2013, the defendant told his counsel that he could not gather the entire question and he answered only the first part. On the said date the counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff asked the following question: "Did you issue legal notice to the plaintiff and the plaintiff went to his counsel and showed the legal notice and only thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the agreement entered between you and the plaintiff was a sale agreement and not a tenancy agreement."
(3.) THE defendant has answered "yes" as he could gather only the first part of the question. The learned Court below recorded the answer as follows: "it is fact that Kondaiah came to know that about the sale of suit plot after the legal notice was read over and explain to him by his Ld.Advocate." ;