JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - The revisional application arises out of an order dated October 31, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 227 of 2018. By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said defendants were practicing advocates, who were advising the parties with regard to the procedure for sale of the property in question. They did not have any other interest in the transaction, but acted in their professional capacity, with bona fide intention.

2. According to the said defendants, the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961 was a complete bar for continuation of the suit before the learned court below against the learned advocates who were engaged by the parties. Reference has been made to section 35, 44 and 48 of the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961 in this regard. Further grounds pleaded for rejection of the plaint was non-service of notice upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation prior to institution of the suit although the Mayor was a defendant, misjoinder of causes of action, bar under the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , etc.

3. Ms. Chakrabarty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that the plaint case was based on misrepresentation of facts by all the defendants including the defendant nos. 3 and 4. That the defendant nos. 3 and 4 were acting in collusion with the defendant nos. 1 and 2 during the entire course of the transaction and they had defrauded the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 asked the sons and daughter of the plaintiff to be the confirming parties to the agreement of sale. That the entire fraudulent transaction had taken place at the behest of not only the defendant nos. 1 and 2, but all the defendants. Hence such issues were to be decided at the trial on evidence and the plaint could not be dismissed against the defendants as a whole.

4. Heard the parties. The plaintiff prayed for a decree that the alleged deed of conveyance which was executed by the plaintiff, being misguided by the misrepresentation and fraud perpetuated by all the defendants, be declared as cancelled and revoked. Further prayers for a decree of recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant nos. 1 and 2, declaration that the defendants had obtained Rs.70 lakhs from the plaintiff wrongfully, and for damages against all the defendants jointly or severally to the tune of Rs.3 crore, had been made.

5. The learned court below rejected the said application on the ground that notice upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was not necessary in the facts of the case, as no major were reliefs had been claimed against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. With regard to the non-maintainability of the suit, the learned Court found that the allegation of non-existence of a privity of contract between the defendant nos. 3 and 4 and the plaintiff, would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint without trial on evidence. The cause of action pleaded were not barred and the suit could proceed. The other ground with regard to the defect in the framing of the suit was also rejected as the court did not find any defect in the suit at the relevant stage.

6. Having considered the contention of Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners, this court is of the view that the plaint, read as a whole, indicates that the plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, fraud, cheating etc. against all the defendants jointly and severally. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 were not being sued for their professional misconduct. The plaint case was not based on allegations of wrong advice of the learned advocates. The suit was not, simpliciter, based on allegations against the defendant Nos.3 and 4 as advocates alone. Allegations of collusion and concerted action with the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been made.

7. The plaint case in a nutshell was that when th