D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) The present Interlocutory Application is filed for condonation of delay of 36 days in preferring the L.P.A.
(2.) For the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, the delay is, hereby, condoned, and the appeal is, hereby, taken up for its hearing.
(3.) The I.A. No.2539 of 2013 stands disposed of. In L.A.P. No.504 of 2012 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2704 of 2006 dated 25.9.2012. 2. The facts of the case : It appears that it is the highest case of this appellant that the predecessors of this appellant has purchased the properties from the widow of Rampado Bhattacharjee in the year 1952. The said document was in consideration of less than Rs. 100/, and therefore, it is an unregistered sale deed. It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that Sri Rampado Bhattacharjee was original owner and his name has been mutated in the revenue entry right from 1939 onwards. The predecessor in title of this appellant, sat quietly after purchasing the property from 1952 till the year 2006. It is alleged by this appellant that the collusive suit was filed between the two persons and the decree was passed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and it is further alleged that the said collusive decree has been confirmed up to Second Appeal before this Court and thereafter the execution proceeding was also instituted by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 before the competent trial court being Execution Case No.5 of 1999, pending before the Sub Judge IV, Hazaribgah. It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that this appellant raised objections under Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 101 to be read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, these objections raised by this appellant are given in Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2005. This was filed on 28th of July, 2005. It further appears that before this Miscellaneous Case is decided, he had also preferred an application before the Revenue Authority for mutation of his name and cancelling the name of Rampado Bhattacharjee. It was supressed by this appellant before the Revenue Authority that this appellant has preferred Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By supressing this material fact, an application was preferred by this appellant for mutation of his name, unfortunately this was allowed by the Revenue Authority and the name of Rampado Bhattacharjee, which was already entered into the revenue entry right from 1939, has been cancelled and the name of the present appellant was incorporated in the revenue entry. This action of the Revenue Authority was under challenge by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.2704 of 2006 by the legal heirs of Rampado Bhattacharjee and this writ was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012. It further appears that the Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2005, which is, in fact, the objections raised in the Execution Case No.5 of 1999, under Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 101 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 21st February, 2009, against which, this appellant has preferred appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2009, pending before the Additional District Judge 4-VI, at Hazaribagh. ;