KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J.:–Heard both sides.

2. The writ application is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Munsif-II, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 36 of 2010 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiffs for not accepting the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant 1st party (respondent 1st party herein) was considered and rejected finding the application frivolous. The Court also imposed cost to be deposited by the plaintiffs with the District Legal Services Authority. For better appreciation, this Court would extract hereinbelow the relevant part of the order dated 18.2.2011:—

“Yet another point of consideration is that on what grounds the petition is preferred before this court? Taking this fact in account, it is emphatically clear that it points out the issue which is already over i.e. grant of time, now can this objection be heard by this court, if it is in what capacity the jurisdiction would be exercised? I am of the opinion that such illegality as alleged, can only be seen by the revisional court and if this court takes up the adjudication it would amount to revising its own order and correcting its illegality in revisional capacity, wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document