Judgment :- Anindita Roy Saraswati, J. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been initiated by the original petitioner/defendant No. 1 Sk. Mazid Khan, since deceased being aggrieved by the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tamluk in connection with Title Suit No. 22 of 1974. By the said order No. 278 dated 19-08-2010, the learned Munsif rejected the application under Order XLVII Rule I of the CPC filed by the said Ex-Mazid Khan since deceased. Being aggrieved by the said order the predecessor of the present petitioners filed this revisional application on the ground that the learned Trial Judge rejected the review application on a wrong finding and the order of the Trial Judge was nothing but a perverse one. Though the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant No. 5 died on 31-03-1979, prior to passing of the preliminary decree but in spite of that learned Trial Judge acted illegally and rejected the application for review. He accordingly prayed for an order to set aside the order of the Trial Court and to allow the review application. The plaintiff Sk. Ashgar Ali had initiated a suit for partition and injunction before the Court of third Munsif, Tamluk on 24-01-1974 against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 as well as against other defendants. That Suit was disposed of on 7th May, 1982, by the Trial Judge and accordingly the suit was decreed on contest in part in preliminary form against the contesting defendant and ex-parte against the rest. Long after the said decree the original defendant No. 1 filed an application for review of the said decree passed on 7-5-1982 and prays for an order that the said decree is void and illegal as the decree was passed against the dead person. According to him, defendant No. 5 of the Suit was died on 31-03-1979 i.e. more than 3 years ago of the passing of the preliminary decree, and the plaintiff obtained the preliminary decree suppressing that fact and without taking any step against the disease defendant. The original defendant No. 1/petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The original defendant No. 1/petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per the provision of the statute it was required to file the application under Order XLVII Rule I CPC within one month of passing the judgment but in this case it appears to me that the original defendant No.1 filed the said review application long after 27 years. Though admittedly the defendant No. 5 was the co – sharer of both the plaintiff and original defendant No. 1, so, it is expected that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the death of defendant No. 5 obviously within this long 27 years. However, as it appears to me that the Trial Court allowed the said application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay without any objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/opposite party has also not even challenged the said order by filing any revisional application before this Court for which it is not necessary to consider at this stage whether the said review application is barred by limitation or not. It is this specific case of the petitioner that the defendant No. 5 died on 31-03-1979 long before the date of decree i.e. on 7-5-1982. In support of his contention he produced a certified copy of the death certificate (Exbt.–1). The opposite party/plaintiff on the contrary produced a witness as OPW–1 who produced the Death Registers of the relevant period and submitted that there is no entry of date of death of Fakir Mohammad Khan (Defendant No. 5) within those registers. The plaintiff also produced one deed of gift executed by Fakir Mohammad Khan dated 16-01-1981 (Exbt. – A). It is true that as per the provision of statute a deed of gift is required to be proved by attesting witnesses but in this case undoubtedly all the attested witnesses were died and the Grandson of the Fakir Mohammad Khan filed the said deed from his custody and also admitted in his cross – examination that he knows the signature by his Grandfather. In that circumstances, as the deed of gift came from the proper custody and the signature of Fakir Mohammad Khan was duly identified by his Grandson the Court rightly marked the document as Exbt.– A. In this case the original defendant No. 1 petitioner filed a certificate copy of a document as the proof of death of defendant No. 5, prior to date of decree but the proof of the document was duly rebutted by the plaintiff/ opposite party No. 1 by producing sufficient proof and witness that OPW No. 1. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the deed of gift dated 16-01-1981 (Exbt. – A) that the defendant No. 5 was alive at least on 31-03-1979. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 5 died in 1987 long after passing of the decree. In that circumstances the original defendant No. 1/petitioner failed to establish that the preliminary decree in connection with the present suit was passed against the dead person in absence of sufficient proof. In that situation the learned Trial Court was quite justified in rejecting the application under Order XLVII Rule I CPC filed by the original defendant No. 1/petitioner. I find no illegality or irregularity in the said order. In that circumstances, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, it is ordered that the present CO No 2968 of 2010 is hereby dismissed on contest. However, there shall be no order of costs. The C.A.N. No. 4371 of 2011 is also dismissed being infractuous. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.