JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Challenging the legal acceptability of the Order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2015 (arising out of Title Appeal No. 118 of 2008), the revisionist has come before this forum with a prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment. According to them, the learned Judge has most erroneously held that the record reveals that a prior to filing of written statement and/or counter claim, the opposite party filed an application on 06.08.2003 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rule 6 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to them, learned Court below failed to consider that in the written statement containing the counter claim dated 16.03.2004 was accepted by the parties with cost of Rs. 200/- and in the said counter claim there was no prayer for decree of eviction but in the body of the said written statement there is vivid description of the counter claim. He further added particularly in paragraphs bearing No. 28 to 31 of written statement that those were not inserted by way of amendment and that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Ventilating his manifold grievances, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the learned Court below had taken care of all material aspects in its proper perspectives. After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore has allowed the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act condoning the delay but dismissed the miscellaneous case on contest. On perusal of the impugned order and the relevant part of the record, I find that the learned Court below has given sound logic in support of his judgment. After a threadbare discussion he has leniently viewed the delay and allowed the limitation petition. 3. It further appears that prior to filing of written statement, the opposite party filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rule 6 (A) of CPC and, thereafter, he has filed a written statement which was accepted on 16.03.2005. Therefore, counter claim was filed before filing of the written statement. Court did not accept the same. It is immaterial when it has been filed. Therefore, counter claim was filed before filing of the written statement. Court did not accept the same. It is immaterial when it has been filed. Some technical mistakes were found in the order of the learned Court below but that technical mistake should not stand in the way of rendering administration of justice. 4. Learned Court below was very cautious that the review application would lie on three grounds namely (1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge, (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (3) for any other sufficient reason. The said application under Order 47 preferred on the ground of the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Counter claim was agitated before filing written statement but not in so many words, but the contents of counter claim was there in the said application of amendment which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rule 6 (A) of CPC. Therefore, learned Court below has come to the correct conclusion, which does not call for any interference. Learned Court below is hereby directed to proceed with the title execution case as early as possible considering the age of the suit. 5. Accordingly, the revisional application merits rejection. There will be no order as to costs. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.