JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

Both parties are represented by their respective learned Advocates.

2. Heard Mr. Sarajit Sen, learned Advocate for the petitioners at length. Also heard Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, learned Advocate led by Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite parties.

3. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as filed today be taken on record.

4. The present revisional application is now taken up for passing appropriate order.

5. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Order No. 141 dated January 5, 2022 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Baruipur, District - South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 47 of 2011 has been assailed.

6. By the impugned order learned Trial Court allowed the opposite party Nos. 10 and 11's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, thus, directed that the present opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 be added as defendant Nos. 10 and 11 in Title Suit No. 47 of 2011 as pending before the learned Trial Court.

7. In support of the instant revisional application learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/revisionists at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the photocopy of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been annexed with the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the present revisionists. It is contended by Mr. Sen, learned Advocate for the present revisionists/plaintiffs that from the said application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as filed by the present opposite party Nos. 10 and 11, it would reveal that the present opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 claimed their right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of a probated will of one Debi Prosad Gupta, since deceased where the mother of the present opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 namely; Amita Gupta, since deceased was the sole executrix and the beneficiary of the said will of the testator Debi Prosad Gupta.

8. Drawing attention to the provision of Section 273 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 and the reported decision Smt. Kanta v. State and Another reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 453 it has been contended by Mr. Sen, that learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order did not visualise the effect of Section 273 proviso Clause (b) of the said Act of 1925.

9. It is further contended by Mr. Sen since the aforesaid alleged probate has been granted by a district Court of the State of Assam the same has got no binding effect in respect of the suit property since the valuation of the suit property was at the time of execution of the will as well as grant of probate was more than Rs. 10,000/-

10. Mr. Sen, thus, submits before this Court that it is a fit case for allowing the instant revisional application by setting aside the impugned order.

11. Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the impugned order. It is argued by Mr. Banerjee, that while passing the impugned order learned Trial Court took care of all possible consequences that may arise during the pendency of Title Suit No. 47 of 2011 after allowing the present opposite party Nos. 10 and 11's application for addition of parties. Mr. Banerjee, thus, submits before this Court that it is a fit case for dismissing he instant revisional application.

12. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court including the certified copy