JUDGMENT :

M.M. DAS, J.

The respondent No. 1 in R.F.A. No. 29 of 2005 pending before the learned District Judge, Puri is the petitioner in the present writ application.

2. As the facts are unfolded in this judgment, the peculiarity of the case will be exhibited.

It is the admitted case of the parties that the present petitioner and the sole opposite party as plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 118 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Puri against the original appellant in the aforesaid appeal, namely, Hasmukhal Ballav Das Desai seeking a decree for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit properties to an extent to Ac. 30.99 decimals covering various plots over Khata No. 88 in Mouza - Sipasarubali, Thana - Sadar, Puri, District-Puri with consequential relief. In the said suit, the aforesaid Hasmukhlal Ballav Das Desai was the sole defendant, who is the father of the present opposite party. A written statement was filed by the said sole defendant in the aforesaid suit wherein the said sole defendant, who was the original appellant in the appeal pending before the learned Court below, inter alia, stated as follows:

"Written statement on behalf of the defendant

1. That the facts mentioned in the plaint need no reply.

2. That the ISKCON had practically provided funds for purchase of the Schedule of the property at Puri.

3. That-when defendant had find difficulty on his part to registered the schedule of the property in the name of ISKCON, the defendant was completed to register the schedule of the property in his name.

4. That the defendant have no objection if the schedule of property to be declared to be the property of ISKCON or plaintiffs and ISKCON or plaintiffs has right, title and interest over the property. Defendant has no right, title and interest over the schedule of property."

3. On the basis of such admission in the written statement, the aforesaid suit was decreed by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the said suit. The said decree remained undisturbed till 1999. One Biswanath Karnani said that he is the Power of Attorney holder of Hasmukhlal Ballav Das Desai (defendant in T.S. No. 118 of 1988) and instituted a title suit in the year 2000 bearing T.S. No. 123 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri representing the Principal as plaintiff. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri and renumbered as T.S. No. 119 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as T.S. No. 123/119 of 2001 2000) in the aforesaid suit filed by the Power of Attorney Holder, the present petitioner and the opposite party were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2.

4. It appears that after issuance of the summons, the present petitioner only entered his appearance and filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. It may be stated here that the plaintiff Hasmukhlal Ballav Das Desai, in the said plaint asserting with regard to the title, inter alia, pleaded that the defendant No. 2, i.e., present opposite party is his son, who became a member of the ISKCON on the persuasion of one Gour Gobinda Swami of ISKCON, who had considerable influence on the son of the plaintiff (opposite party herein) and his son was blindly following the dictates of the said Gour Gobinda Swami. On his persuasion, the opposite party transferred his valuable property to the ISKCON without any necessity or without any rhyme or reason or without the receipt of any consideration amount. He further pleaded that the opposite party, who was the defendant No. 2 in the suit, did not care for his family life or even for his relationship with F1is father. Even after expiry of the said Gour Gobinda Swami, the defendant No. 2 (opposite party herein) is away from the plaintiff and does not keep any relationship with him. The plaintiff received information from one Jagannath Patra about threat of ISKCON, to enter into the disputed property and on making ne