JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 11, 2023, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in IA No. GA 13 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 100022 of 1996. The appellant is the defendant no. 3 in the suit.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent no. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘Goutam’). Several interlocutory applications were filed in the suit from time to time at the instance of the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Binaguri”) as also Goutam. I shall only refer to some of such applications as would be relevant for the present purpose.

3. In paragraph 1 of the plaint of the suit, it is stated that premises no. 4 Alipore Park, subsequently renumbered as 24/2 Alipore Road is the subject matter of the suit (in short “the suit premises”). The prayers in the plaint read as follows:

“(i) For declaration that the Deed of Transfer dated 18.06.1971 executed by Sailendra Nath Roy, since deceased, as trustee to the Trust Estate of Amarendra Nath Roy is illegal and void and the same has not affected the trust property created by the said Amarendra Roy.

(ii) For declaration that the Trust created by Amarendra Nath Roy came to an end only on 23.11.1990 when the said Sailendra Nath Roy died and on his death the suit property along with other residue properties covered by the said Deed of Trust vested in the plaintiff as one of the beneficiaries in terms of the said Deed of Trust.

(iiA) Order dated 12th February, 1980 and decree dated 22nd May 1980 are illegal void and not binding on the plaintiff and liable to be set aside.

(iii) For further declaration that the Deed of Conveyance executed by the defendant no. 2 dated 14.02.1981 in favour of the defendant no. 3 is void and inoperative and the same has not affected either the Trust property or the interest of the plaintiff as beneficiary thereof.

(iiiA) Decree be passed directing the purported Deed of Conveyance dated 14th February, 1981 be presented before the Court and be delivered back to the plaintiff and be cancelled.

(iv) For recovery of possession of the suit property evicting the defendant No. 1 or 3 or anybody claiming through them.”

4. It is not in dispute that the deed of transfer dated 18/6/1971 referred to in prayer (a) and the Trust referred to in prayer (ii) as well as the deed of conveyance dated 14.2.1981 referred to in prayers (iii) and (iiiA), all pertain to the suit premises.

5. It appears that the plaintiff in the present suit, i.e. Goutam, had earlier filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore being Title Suit No. 1977 of 1992 with prayers similar to the prayers in the present suit. Goutam subsequently filed an application before the Alipore Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking return of the plaint for presentation of the same before the Calcutta High Court since he had challenged the validity of a decree passed by the High Court as also the validity of a Deed of Conveyance executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of Binaguri under direction of the High Court. By an order dated April 16, 1996, the learned Alipore Court allowed such application and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.

6. Goutam then filed the present suit which was then registered as Suit No. 129(C) of 1996.

7. In the suit, Binaguri took out a demurer application being GA No. 914 of 1998 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked and also on the ground that the suit is barred by the laws of limitation. The application was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by an order dated July 16, 1998, observing that such point may be taken by the plaintiff (sic) to be read as petitioner as a preliminary point at the time of hearing of the suit.

8. Challenging such order Binaguri filed an appeal being APOT No. 545 of 1998 and filed an application therein being