JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

Both the petitioners and the opposite parties are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. Learned advocate for the opposite parties filed the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and the learned advocate for the petitioners filed affidavit-in-reply. The affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply be taken on record.

3. Heard learned advocates for both the parties at length.

4. Perused the certified copy of the impugned order.

5. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it reveals to this Court that in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court on 05.04.2021 have filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the maintainability of L.R. Misc. Case No. 15 of 2019 based on the proposition of law as held in the reported decisions of Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 767 and Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee , reported in 2022 (3) ICC (S.C.) 641 .

6. Before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner of L.R. Misc. Case No. 15 of 2019 on 14.12.2021 has filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to deposit balance consideration money along with 10 per cent interest thereof. It reveals from the certified copy of the impugned order that for some reason or other, learned Trial Court disposed of the subsequent application dated 14.12.2021 as filed by the petitioner of the said Misc. case keeping the earlier application dated 05.04.2021 as filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 pending and thereby permitted the petitioner of the said Misc. case to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,09,000/- along with 10 per cent interest being Rs. 60,900/- total into Rs. 6,69,000/-.

7. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the revisionist/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 submits before this Court that learned Trial Court is not at all justified in allowing the subsequent application of the present opposite party no. 1 keeping the application of the present revisionist pending in view of the ratio of the aforementioned two reported decisions, namely, Barasat Eye Hospital (Supra) and Abdul Matin Mallick (Supra). It is further submitted by Mr. Mitra that by allowing the subsequent application as filed by the present opposite party no. 1 before the learned Trial Court which has been filed on 14.12.2021, the learned Trial Court has made the present revisionist's application dated 05.04.2021 practically infructuous.

8. While opposing the prayer of Mr. Mitra, Mr. Seth, learned advocate for the present opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in course of his submission places his reliance upon two reported decisions of this Hon'ble Court, namely, i) Maya Debnath v. Uttam Sarkar & Anr. reported in 2023 (2) Indian Civil Cases 203 (Cal.) and ii) Sk. Abdul Odud Ali v. Emanulla Khan & Ors. reported in 2021 AIR CC 2722 (CAL).

9. It is submitted by Mr. Seth that in order to maintain a judicial decorum, it would be appropriate for this Court to refer the instant matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Acting) for assigning the matter before a Larger Bench.

10. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for both the parties, it reveals to this Court that while passing the impugned order, learned Trial Court placed his reliance upon the reported decision of B