IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW NO.80 OF 2006 Prakash Kumar Bajaj @ Prakash, S/o Late Gokhul Chand Bajaj, Resident of Mohalla-Ghosi Tola, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District-Munger Intervenor-Respondent No.5-Petitioner 1. Md. Taslim, S/o Roshan Mian, Resident of Mohalla- Madhopur, Durgapur, P.S.-Basudeopur, District-Munger. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Ist Set. 2. Md. Alim, S/o Late Bhulatan Mian @ Md. Israfil. 3. Nisha Khatoon @ Anisha Khatoon, D/o Late Bhulatan @ Md. Israful, both resident of village-Mohammadpur, P.S. Munger, District-Munger. 4. Md. Anzal Mian @ Md. Nisa, S/o Late Roahsn Mian. 5. Isat Arra @ Ismat Arra, D/o Late Roshan Mian. both Resident of Mohalla-Jarbehara, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd set ----------- For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari For the respondent Ist set: - Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh. For other respondents : - None. .................. 06/ 17.04.2009 1. I.A No. 1592 of 2006 has been filed for condoning the delay in the filing of this Civil Review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of two months in the filing of this petition for which specific reasons have been stated in the interlocutory application. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and reiterates his submission made in the counter affidavit filed to the aforesaid interlocutory application. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as specific pleadings of the parties, the aforesaid interlocutory application bearing 1592 of 2006 is allowed and delay in filing of - 2 - the Review petition is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Civil Review petition has been filed by respondent no. 5 of the First Appeal for review of order dated 20.12.2005 passed in F.A. No. 316 of 1988 by which I.A. No. 3112 of 2004 filed by respondent no. 5 for directing the appellant to release in favour of respondent no. 5 the portion of the suit property which is a house purchased by him from respondent no. 2 after permission being granted by this Court but the appellant occupied it as trespasser. 4. The said First Appeal had arisen out of Title Suit No. 121 of 1981 which was filed by the appellant for partition of his half share in the suit property, namely, a house detailed in the schedule of plaint. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-1 Munger vide judgment and decree dated 20.06.1988 after holding that the suit was not for possession rather it was only for partition and hence the same was not maintainable because title of defendant no. 2 (respondent no. 2) had matured by way of ouster and adverse possession. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed the above mentioned First Appeal in which an application was filed by the appellant for injuncting the respondents from dispossessing him from the suit property but this Court vide order dated 6.8.1991 disposed of the said application and merely permitted respondent no. 2 to sell half share in the suit - 3 - property and with regard to the remaining half share the appellant was restrained from disposing of or encumbering the same. 6. The claim of respondent no. 5 is that on the basis of the said order, respondent no. 2 sold half of the suit property to respondent no. 5 by registered deed dated 6.9.1991 but immediately thereafter the appellant forcibly dispossessed respondent no. 5 on 28.10.1991 on which date an F.I.R. was also filed by respondent no. 5 against the appellant with respect thereto. It is also claimed that respondent no. 5 later filed Title Suit No. 17 of 1999 against the appellant for recovery of possession in the aforesaid facts and circumstances but in that suit the appellant of this First Appeal filed a petition for non-maintainability of the suit which was rejected by the trial Court on 1.8.2002 against which Civil Revision No. 1207 of 2002 was filed by the appellant which was disposed of by this Court on 11.12.2003 staying further proceeding of Title Suit No. 17 of 1999 and directing respondent no. 5 to move before this Court in F.A. No. 316 of 1988 whereafter the said purchaser appeared in this case and was impleaded as respondent no. 5, whereafter he filed I.A. NO 3112 of 2004 for restoration of possession which was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2005, for review of which the instant review petition has been filed. 7. Considering the entire facts as mentioned above and also considering the averments of the parties and the material produced by them, it is quite apparent that there is no error - 4 - apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order nor any fresh material has been produced to take a different view. Furthermore this matter requires full enquiry with regard to the question of possession etc. specially when the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is under challenge on the basis of specific evidence led by the parties, hence no order with respect to I.A. No. 3112 of 2004 filed in First Appeal No. 316 of 1988 could be passed at this stage. 8. In the said circumstances, this Review petition is disposed of only with a modification of order dated 20.12.2005 to the extent that I.A. No. 3112 of 2004 shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the First Appeal No. 316 of 1988. S.Sb/- (S. N. Hussain, J.)