Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated August 25, 2015 passed by this Court in C.O. No. 4123 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said revisional application"). By the said order this Court allowed the said revisional application filed by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 54 of 2011, pending before the learned 2nd Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, challenging the order dated November 24, 2014 whereby the learned Court below accepted the written statements in the said title suit filed by the defendant nos. 5 and 6 in the said suit.
(2.) Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the present review application submitted that inasmuch as Mrs. Sumitra Saha, who was impleaded as the opposite party no. 3 in the said revisional application, had already died before filing of the revisional application, the said order dated August 25, 2015 passed by this Court against a dead person is void and the same is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The second ground urged by Mr. Mukherjee in support of the review application is that the said order dated August 25, 2015 is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record because at that time of passing of the said order, the plaintiff opposite party did not bring it to the notice of this Court that on their prayer, by an order dated December 22, 2014 the learned Court below had impleaded some more defendants in the suit. According to him, the added defendants are entitled to file their written statements and if, the said order dated December 22, 2014 would have been brought to the notice of the Court, instead of allowing the said revisional application this Court would also have upheld the order dated November 24, 2014 passed by the learned Court below accepting the written statement filed by the defendant nos. 5 petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee strenuously urged the above facts of the death of the defendant opposite party no. 3 and the order dated December 22, 2014 passed by the learned Court below impleading more defendants in the suit at the instance of the plaintiff opposite party are all admitted facts and, as such, the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 cannot oppose the present review application. On these grounds he urged that this Court should review the order dated August 25, 2015 and allow the prayer of the defendant no. 5 petitioner for acceptance of his written statement by the learned Court below.
(3.) However, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 strongly contended that the present review application filed by the defendant no. 5 petitioner is not maintainable as the said order dated August 25, 2015 passed by this Court is not vitiated by any error to constitute a ground of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called "the Code". He submitted that although it is a fact that the opposite party no. 3 in the said revisional application had died before filing of the said revisional application, but the opposite party no. 6, her sole heir was already on record of the suit. Thus, according to him, the contention raised on behalf of the defendant no. 5 petitioner that the said order dated August 25, 2015 is a void order is devoid of any merit. In support of such contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Diesel Loco Shed and South Eastern Railway House Building Coop. Society Ltd. v. Attili Appala Swamy reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390. Mr. Chatterjee next contended that one of the grounds recorded in the said order dated August 25, 2015 for allowing the said revisional application by setting aside the order passed by the learned Court below dated November 24, 2014 was the direction contained in the order dated September 29, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 3182 of 2014 that any application filed by the defendants for extension of time to file their written statement shall be considered by the learned Court below after being satisfied that the grounds under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code existed. He further submitted that this Court passed the order dated August 25, 2015 after recording in detail the facts that the defendant opposite party no. 5 and some other defendants had obtained repeated extensions of time to file their respective written statement, with an aim to delay the commencement of the trial of the suit and the conduct of the opposite party no. 5 petitioner was not bona fide.;