JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The endorsement of the registry showed that no caveat was lodged.

Facts:

3. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 20 of 2017 instituted and pending before the Learned Civil Judge, LCJ (Junior Division) Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar. Opposite party nos. 19 to 23 were the original defendants in the said title suit. The opposite nos. 1 to 18 were the proposed interveners (for short, the said interveners) in the said title suit.

4. The order impugned in this application was the Order No. 106 dated April 02, 2022 (for short, the impugned order) passed in the said Title Suit by the said Jurisdictional Civil Suit whereunder two applications one being dated April 13, 2021 (for short, the first intervention application) and the other being dated December 04, 2021 (for short, the second intervention application) were allowed and the interveners were added as defendants in the said title suit.

Plaint case:

5. The plaintiff/petitioner claimed to be the owner of 0.93 acres of land situated at Village and Mouza: Takagachh, District-Cooch Behar, described in “Schedule-A” to the plaint.

6. In the year 2016 the plaintiff/petitioner claimed to have purchased the said Schedule A land from diverse vendors under a registered deed of conveyance dated October 03, 2016. The plaintiff claimed that prior to purchase of the said land, the plaintiff took possession of the same by paying an advance consideration. The land was then mutated in the name of the plaintiff at Khaitan No. 4279. Since then, the plaintiff is residing thereat.

7. The portion of the said Schedule A land which is under occupation of the defendants/opposite parties was specifically mentioned in Schedule B (for short, the suit land) to the plaint. At the time of granting permissive occupation to the defendants/opposite parties, it was agreed by and between the parties that the defendants/opposite parties would not raise in permanent structure on the suit land and they would vacate the same within six months from their occupation. However, defendants/opposite parties after taking possession of the suit land surreptitiously tried to raise permanent structure on the suit land and on May 23, 2017 they accumulated sand, stone and other construction material at the suit land. The plaintiff protested and asked the defendants/opposite parties not to construct any permanent structure on the suit land which was in the process of errection without any prior permission from the plaintiff/petitioner. The defendants/opposite parties on May 24, 2017 started raising permanent structure on the suit land without any permission from the plaintiff/petitioner. On May 26, 2017 the plaintiff visited the suit land and asked the defendant to deliver up the possession of the suit land. The plaintiff/petitioner revoked the license.

8. In the light of the above facts, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the said title suit Annexure P-1 at page 14 to the application claiming, inter-alia, as follows:

“(a) For decree of declaration that the defendant was licensee of the scheduled land which has since been revoked.

(b) For a decree of eviction of the defendant from scheduled properties.

(c) For eviction of the defendant from his illegal possession from suit land and delivery peaceful possession infavour of the plaintiff.

(d) For all costs of suit.

(e) Mandatory injunction.

(f) Such other relief or reliefs as law and equity would allow the plaintiffs.”

9. In the said title suit the two sets of interveners had filed two separate applications seeking addition of party under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), Annexure P-3 at page 35 and 37 to the application.

10. The said two applications were taken up together and were allowed under the said impugned order.

Submissions:

11. Mr. Subhasis Misra Learned counsel appeared for the plaintiff/petitioner submitted that, th