JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The present two applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the same order dated 22nd July 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Courts, Howrah in Title Suit no. 1 of 2011. Aggrieved by that order Uma Shankar Singh Defendant No. 7/ purchaser preferred C.O. No. 4388 of 2019 and Niyaz Ahmed Siuddique defendant No.3/ owner preferred C.O. 3906 of 2019. Since issue involved in both the aforesaid two applications are same, both the applications are hereby disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners of said two applications contended that the opposite party no 1 herein as plaintiff instituted aforesaid Title Suit no. 1 of 2011 before Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd court, Howrah interalia praying for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 1st November, 2010. In the plaint, plaintiff /opposite party no.1herein contended that he is in possession of land measuring more or less 7 Bigha 11 Kathas as a tenant since 1955. Further case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 to 6 of that suit agreed to sale the said suit premises to the plaintiff at a consideration of Rs. 2,79,35,000/-and such agreement also records payment of Rs. 30 lakhs by the plaintiff to the original defendant no. 1-6 against the aforesaid agreed consideration. Opposite party no.1 herein as plaintiff further contended that he was surprised to find to newspaper notice on 11th December, 2010 that proforma opposite party no.5 of C.O. 3906/ 2019 and petitioner of C.O. 4388 of 2019, who is also defendant no. 7 of the suit has purchased the suit property. Thereafter on 20th December, plaintiff further realised that the original defendants no. 1 to 6 have caused to deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs in the plaintiffs bank account. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff’ sent a legal notice and in the above backdrop plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 herein has filed aforesaid suit being no. 1 of 2011.

3. The aforesaid defendants/owners in the said suit appeared and filed written statement denying all material allegations. Defendants No. 1 to 6 also instituted eviction suit being Title Suit no. 86 of 2006 against opposite party no. 1 herein and the same has been decreed in favour of defendant no. 1 to 6 of the present suit. Opposite party no. 1 herein being aggrieved by the said judgment, and decree dated 09.11.2017 has preferred appeal which is still pending.

4. In the aforesaid Title Suit instituted by opposite party no. 1 herein, an application under order XIII Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) along with section 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1989 (herein after called as act of 1899) was filed by defendant no. 1 to 6 praying to impound said unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreement for sale dated 01.11.2010 produced before the court so as to keep the same in the custody of the court. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff filed written objection to the said application. By an order dated 3rd September, 2013 the court below allowed the said application filed under order XIII Rule 8 on contest and the court below issued a letter to the collector /DSR(District Sub-Registrar) Howrah, requesting him to supply the market value of the suit property. In compliance of the requisition, the collector /DSR sent a report on 19th November, 2013 but said report was incomplete and not according to the procedure of calculation of the market value. Defendant no. 1 to 6 filed an application on 5th May, 2014 under section 151 of CPC for appropriate direction asking the collector /DSR to supply the market value of the suit property afresh, after reconsideration and rectification of the same in view of the details of structure mentioned in the registered lease deed. The op no.1 filed an objection to the said application filed under section 151 but the learned Court below by and order dated 9th January, 2015 called for supplying information as to whether the said market value o