JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This is an application for reviewing the order, dated 5-4-1982 by which Honble Deoki Nandan, J. (since retired) dismissed the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, C.P.C. Subsequently by his order, dated 26-5-1982, he reviewed that order and admitted the appeal without notice to the respondent who had already put in appearance. I have already set aside that order by my judgment, dated 7.5.1984, hence I proceed to hear the original review application. 2. Dr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the applicants, placed before me the order, dated 5.4.1982, and pointed out that the aforesaid order proceeded on the footing that the case turned on a finding of fact to the effect that the defendants had not contributed anything towards the sale consideration of the house. The contention was that this was based on a wrong construction of the pleadings of the defendants. The defence case was that the plaintiff, taking advantage of his seniority in age obtained the sale deed of the property in question in his exclusive name, as he was a very shrewd person. It was submitted that this plea, properly construed was a plea of fraud and therefore, the view expressed by the courts below that only the plea of Benami was pleaded and not of fraud, was erroneous and Honble Deoki Nandan, J. while passing the order, dated 5-4-1982, was influenced by that wrong impression. 3. I have perused the record of the case and scrutinised the written statement. In my opinion a plea of fraud was not expressly and properly taken nor any particulars thereof alleged. Even if we hold that such a plea was remotely implicit in the pleadings, it was not crucial in the case and no error of law has been caused in the impugned judgment on that account. Ultimately the emphasis of the defence was on the allegation that each one of the defendants had contributed his own share towards the purchase of the house. That plea of fact was rejected after a thorough appraisal of the evidence. The courts below observed that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the plaintiffs exclusive title. In these circumstances, in my opinion the order, dated 5-4-1982, dismissing the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, C.P.C. was correct and did not call for any interference. 4. With these observations this review application is dismissed. The courts below observed that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the plaintiffs exclusive title. In these circumstances, in my opinion the order, dated 5-4-1982, dismissing the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, C.P.C. was correct and did not call for any interference. 4. With these observations this review application is dismissed. The stay order, dated 26th May, 1982 is hereby vacated.