Bijoy Krishna Sarkar vs Malabika Sarkar & Ors

Biswajit Basu, J

The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and is directed against Order No. 24 dated January 22, 2019 passed by the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bolpur, District Birbhum in Title Suit No. 31 of 2017, whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed an application filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for their addition in the said suit as defendants.

Mr. Arefin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the suit the plaintiff has challenged the validity of the deed through which the defendant/opposite party no. 1 is tracing her title over the suit property and the added defendants having no interest over the suit property are not at all necessary parties to the suit. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in adding the said persons in the suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the added parties to the suit being opposite party nos. 2 and 3 herein submits that the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and the added defendants are all family members and the suit property was originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the added defendant no. 2, therefore the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the added defendants are necessary parties to the suit particularly when the deed executed by the father of the plaintiff and the added defendant no. 2 is under challenge in the suit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record.

The father of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 executed a deed in favour of the defendant no. 1, the wife of another brother of the plaintiff. The said deed is the subject matter of challenge in the suit. The plaintiff is challenging the validity of the said deed on the ground that the same was obtained by practicing fraud upon his father. The learned trial Judge under such facts and circumstances of the case felt it necessary that the presence of the added defendants would assist the Court to decide the dispute between the parties more effectively and by exercising his discretion added the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the suit as defendants.

The exercise of such discretion by the learned trial Judge cannot be branded as arbitrary and/or capricious exercise of the discretion vested on the learned trial Judge.

The order impugned for the aforesaid reasons does not call for any interference.

C.O. No. 1877 of 2019 is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

However, the learned trial Judge is requested to expedite the hearing of the suit.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.