IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
H. BARUAH, J.
Ashok Kumar Roy Pradhani – Appellant
Vs.
Kalyani Bhadra and Ors. – Respondent
CRP Nos. 340 and 341 of 2008
Decided On: 28.09.2010
Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 - Section 114 - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Decree of permanent injunction - Decree for declaration and permanent injunction - Impugned order passed in application for amendment as proposed therein was allowed while by impugned order passed in applications for striking out adding of parties made under Order Rule of Code of Civil Procedure were allowed - By impugned order passed in review application made under Section 114 of Code were rejected - Since all impugned orders issued out of Title Suit both revision petitions are taken up together for disposal - Law laid down by Apex Court in case allowed transposition of Plaintiff as Defendant under Order Rule of Code of Civil Procedure - Ratio would also be applicable in present case - Appears to have not committed any error or illegality in allowing both applications filed by Respondents herein - It is indicated herein before that such transposition was not allowed by learned Munsiff basing on a single application under Order I, Rule - Transposition was allowed on basis of two applications filed under provision - First application was in respect of striking out her name as Plaintiff while second application was made for adding her as Defendant - Petition allowed
H. Baruah, J.
1. In these revision petitions, the Petitioner, has put under challenge the following orders arising out of Title Suit No. 306 of 2006.
(1) Order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 100 of 2008 and 101 of 2008;
(2) Order dated 19.7.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 167 of 2008 and 101 of 2008;
(3) Order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 339 of 2007 and 101 of 2008; and
(4) Order dated 19.7.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 166 of 2008 and 101 of 2008;
It would be appropriate/apposite to state that all the impugned order were passed by learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri. For convenience, impugned order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 339/2007 would be dealt with first, secondly the order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 100 of 2008 and Misc. (j) No. 101 of 2008 and thirdly the order dated 19.7.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 166 of 2008 and 167 of 2008.
2. By impugned order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc.(j) Case No. 339 of 2007, the application for amendment as proposed therein was allowed while by impugned order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc.(j) Case Nos. 100 of 2008 and 101 of 2008 applications for striking out adding of parties made under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed. By impugned order dated 19.7.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case Nos. 166 of 2008 and 167 of 2008, the review application made under Section 114 of Code were rejected. Since all the impugned orders issued out of Title Suit No. 306 of 2006, both the revision petitions are taken up together for disposal.
3. The Respondents herein as Plaintiffs instituted at Title Suit No. 306 of 2006 earlier registered as T.S No. 56 of 2005 for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction against the Petitioner and two others for a declaration that the Gaon Panchayat Office of Moterjhar Panchayat shall continue to remain at Moterjhar Village and Construction of Gaon Panchayat Office of Moterjhar shall not be made at Morakura Village or in any other place other than Moterjhar and also for a decree of permanent injunction against the Petitioners and two others from releasing the fund for earth filing and constructing building at Murakura or any other place. The Petitioner was elected President of the Moterjhar Goan Panchayat from 2001 to 2007 while the Respondents were members of Gaon Panchayat, Anchalic Panchayat and Jilla Panchayat for the term 2001-07. There was a move for shifting the office of the Gaon Panchayat, Moterjhar to Morakura and to resist such shifting the opposite parties instituted the suit as indicated above for a decree for declaration and injunction. While the suit was sub-judice, the opposite parties filed a petition on 1.12.2007 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint in view of deletion of the Panchayat bodies. The aforesaid petition was registered as Misc. (j) Case No. 339 of 2007. The Petitioner objected to such amendment. However, the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri vide order dated 26.6.2008 allowed such amendment with cost. On 8.5.2008 opposite party No. 1 Smt. Kalayani Bhadra preferred a petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to strike out her name as Plaintiff. The petition was registered as Misc.(j) Case No. 100 of 2008. Similarly on the same date another application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed seeking transposition of herself as Defendant on account of her election as President of Moterjhar Gaon Panchayat. The aforesaid petition was registered as Misc.(j) No. 101 of 2008. The learned Munsiff No. 2 took up both the petitions and by a common order dated 26.6.2008 allowed striking of her name as Plaintiff and transposition as Defendant. The Petitioner thereafter filed a review petition being No. 575 on 19.7.2008 for review of the order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Misc. (j) Case No. 339 of 2007 contending inter alia that striking of her name as one
Bijoya Kumar Pattanaik v. Basanta Kumar Patnaik and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3587
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.