CRP 108/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition er was defendant No.1 in Title Suit 158/07 instituted in the Court of Munsiff No .1, Dibrugarh, by the present opposite parties. The suit had proceeded ex- parte against the petitioner as well as the other defendants. No written statement wa s, accordingly, filed on behalf of the defendants including the present petition er. By judgment and order date 13/8/2007, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed ex-parte declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. However, the prayer for recovery of Khas possession as sought for by the plaintiff was denie d. Aggrieved by the refusal to pass a decree for Khas possession by the lea rned trial Court, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Civil J udge, Dibrugarh, which was registered as Title appeal No.18/2008. The present pe titioner filed an application dated 15/12/09, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with S ection 151 CPC with the prayer to allow him to file cross objection, documents a nd to adduce evidence. The appellants/plaintiffs had also filed objection to the said petition stating that the application filed by the present petitioner was misconceived and is not sustainable in law. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties and on considerati on of the materials on record, by order dated 13/8/10 rejected the said petition . Order dated 13/8/2010 is impugned in the present petition. The learned appellate Court had taken note of the fact that as the defendant No. 1 had not filed any written statement and accordingly, had not adduced any evide nce before the trial Court, recourse cannot be had to the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence. The learned Appellate Court also took a view that such an application, under the facts and circumstances of the c ase, is clearly beyond the contours of the power of the appellate Court to be ex ercised under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The appellate Court had also taken note of t he fact that the defendant No.1 had not taken recourse to filing of any applicat ion under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting the ex-parte decree dated 13/8/07 by s howing sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendant No.1 had enga ged a counsel to take steps on his behalf in the trial Court but his engaged cou nsel did not take steps and had also withdrawn from the case without due intimat ion to the defendant No.1, as a result of which the suit proceeded ex-parte agai nst him. Mr. Bhowmik, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitio ner was denied the opportunity to contest the proceeding in the trial Court beca use of the failure on the part of his counsel to take steps and also because of the fact that he had chosen to withdraw from the case without the knowledge of t he defendant No.1. He submits that because of such conduct of the counsel, the a pplication has to be considered in the light of the factual matrix aforesaid. He has also submitted that to file cross objection, no permission of the Court is required and to that extent, prayer for permitting to file cross-objection in th e application dated 15/12/09 was not really called for. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Bhowmik. Given the facts of the case, where the defendant No1, for whatever reasons, did not file written state ment, it is the considered opinion of the Court that the learned appellate Court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The prayer made by the defendant No.1 does not come within the scope and am bit of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and therefore, the order dated 13/ 8/2010 is not vitiated on account of any error of jurisdiction. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 13/8/2010 and accordingly, I do n ot find that this petition deserves to be admitted for hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition, would, however, not preclude the defendant N o.1 to file cross-objection, if the same is, otherwise, permissible in law. If a ny such cross-objection is filed, the learned appellate Court would consider the maintainability of such cross-objection and decide the matter in accordance wit h law. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.