SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS MCRC No. 08 of 2026 (Review Application) In CLR No. 67 of 2022 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The review application MCRC No. 08 of 2026 has been moved by the revisionist for reviewing the judgment and order dated 05.12.2025 whereby the revision was dismissed. 4. The review applicant seeking review of the judgment on the ground that the revision was decided in absence of the counsel of the revisionist and the material facts were not brought to the knowledge of this Court by the counsel for the respondent. He also submits that in fact notice was not duly served upon the revisionist which in fact is a mandatory requirement in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and in this regard specific plea was taken on an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. by enclosing the postal receipts wherein is clearly mentioned that “the addressee was out of station and found door locked so the postman delivered the article to the remitted” and as such the article was not delivered to the addressee. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that this material fact was not looked into while dismissed the revision. 6. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel review applicant/revisionist by submitting that plea of service of notice is purely a question of fact and does not fall within the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. In response to the argument of learned counsel for the respondent the counsel for the review applicant argued that as per the mandate of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. since the mandatory notice in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not served upon the defendant/revisionist, therefore, the suit is barred by law and as such fall within the parameter of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that plea of service of notice is purely a question of fact and beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., therefore, the ground as taken in the review application is thoroughly misconceived. Even otherwise, the revision was decided on merits though in absence of the counsel for the revisionist, therefore, I do not find any ground to review the judgment and as such the review application is dismissed. 8. While dismissing the review application it is made clear that the revisionist/defendant is free to take all plea with regard to the service of notice before the trial court and the trial court proceed with the trial strictly on it’s merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.02.2026 Nahid