JUDGMENT

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in F.A.O. No.58 of 2008 confirming the order dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore in C.M.A. No.62 of 2007 rejecting the petition under Section 144, CPC filed by the present petitioner for restoration of possession of the suit house.

2. Facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Petition are that opposite parties 1 to 6 as plaintiffs filed C.S. No.77/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore by impleading petitioner and opposite party No.7 as defendants to evict them from the suit house and for realization of arrear house rent and cost of litigation. The aforesaid suit was decreed ex parte on 26.03.2004 in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, in E.P. No.8/2004, the delivery of the suit house was given to the plaintiffs/opposite parties 1 to 6. In the year 2006, the petitioner filed a petition under Order-IX, Rule 13, CPC in CMA No.1 of 2006 before the Trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree which was allowed on 20.11.2007 by setting aside the ex parte decree. Opposite parties 1 to 6 challenged the order of the Trial Court dated 20.11.2007 before this Court in CRP No.7 of 2008 in which the order of the trial court was confirmed. The Revision petitioner also filed a petition under Section 144, CPC before the learned Trial Court in CMA No.62 of 2007 praying for restoration / re-delivery of the suit house to the revision petitioner on the ground that the ex parte order, on the basis of which the plaintiffs/opposite parties 1 to 6 had got possession through the process of Court, was set aside. The Plaintiff-opposite parties 1 to 6 filed their counter challenging the entitlement of the revision petitioner to get re-delivery of the suit house on the ground that she was not the lessee under plaintiff/opposite party No.5, but the present opposite party No.7 (defendant no.1) who has allowed the revision petitioner/defendant no.2 to stay in the suit house is entitled to possession of the suit house. On 01.11.2008, after closure of the arguments, opposite party No.7 filed a memo through his Advocate that the plaintiff-opposite parties delivered possession of the suit house to opposite party No.7. Thereafter learned Trial Court rejected the petition under Section 144 CPC filed by the revision petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the learned District Judge by filing F.A.O. No.58 of 2008 and the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 10.04.2009 confirmed the order of the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Mr.Sidhartha Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and contrary to admitted documents on record. On 16.09.1999, opposite party No.5 through Sri M.Upendra Rao, Advocate had issued notice to the revision petitioner and opposite party No.7 and others to quit/vacate the suit house. Opposite party No.7/Defendant No.1, through his Advocate, Sri L.K.Panda, presently Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party Nos.1 to 6 replied to the said notice that his client was in no way connected with the suit house in question and he never took the house on lease nor stayed therein at any time. Ch. Subhalakshmi clearly stated in her deposition in M.C. Case No.118/96 that her daughter K.Nagamani by paying Rs.20,000/-to G.Venketeswar Rao was in possession of the house for about last four years. Smt. Nagamani also claimed that she has paid Rs.50,000/-to G.Rama Devi, daughter of G.Satyabati on 30.03.1992 and was in possession of the house under lease. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that opp. party No.7 is in no way concerned with the house nor inducted subtenants. This reply of opposite party No.7 has been lost sight of by the learned Trial Cou