7 . From a perusal of records, it appears that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.08.1995 and possession was also handed over. From pleadings, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff was carrying out excavation of clay soil from suit land and at that time defendant No. 1 raised objections, therefore civil suit was filed which shows that the plaintiff was in possession at the relevant time though the issue of possession was not involved and no relief was sought with regard to possession. Defendant No. 1 did not prefer any application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree and he has not filed any civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed though he argues that the owner of the property bearing survey No. 316 is Harishchand and the sale deed executed by Pancham S/o Kalu in favour of the plaintiff was within his knowledge but he chose not to challenge the sale deed before the competent court. With regard to the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, property in Rin Pustika contains certain survey numbers recorded in the names of Harishchand, Dukhiram and Kartikram but mere filing of a copy of Rin Pustika does not confer any right or title, therefore in the opinion of this court such an application at this stage cannot be allowed. Consequently, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is rejected.
