Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashoke Kumar Sengupta appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Suniti Chatterjee and the learned Advocate for the Caveator opposite party Mr. Saptangsu Basu. Considered the materials on record.
(2.)By the instant revisional application under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the landlord-defendants-petitioners have challenged order No. 79 dated 8th Aug., 1995, whereby the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, rejected the prayer in the application of the landlord- defendants (petitioners herein) made under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code.
(3.)The fact on which this revision rests is that the tenants as plaintiff instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, being Title Suit No. 2031 of 1988, which is pending before the 13th Bench, City Civil Court. In the suit the plaintiff alleged that he is a tenant under the petitioners-landlords in respect of the suit premises comprising three tenancies, namely, room No. 11, room No. 11A and an open space of plot No. 21 on the ground floor at a monthly rental of Rs. 40.00, Rs. 20.00 and Rs. 20.00 respectively payable according to the English Calendar month. The tenancy has been described in, Paragraph 1 of the plaint and the extent of the tenancy has been shown in a map annexed to the plaint which is also annexed to this revisional application and marked as Exhibit 'A' at page 17. The said statement in Paragraph 1 of the plaint has been denied and/or disputed in Paragraph 5 of the written statement filed by the landlord-defendants (petitioners herein), wherein the landlord-defendants denied and/or disputed the correctness of the map annexed to the plaint. Thereafter issues were framed and the suit went into trial. The evidence on behalf of the defendants-landlord-petitioners was taken and the defendant as D.W. 1 deposed about the incorrectness of the plan. The landlord-defendants in cross-examination on 27th May, 1993 put question to P.W. 1, the tenant (Plaintiff-opposite party herein) about the correctness of the plan and P.W. 1 deposed in the negative and stated that the plan is a correct one.
;