The appellants had no permission from the respondent No.1 to give any money to the proforma respondent No.4. Therefore, it was held that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract vide Ext. Kha towards the respondent No.1.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel for the respondent. No appearance is made on behalf of the proforma respondents herein. Hence, the matter has been heard ex parte against them.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by this Court, all these matters have been analogously heard.

3. In challenge with the present appeal i.e. RFA 54/2015 is the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in T.S. No. 3/2008 by which the suit was decreed and the counter-claim of the appellant-defendant herein was dismissed.

4. The challenge in FAO No. 27/2013 is the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No. 30/2013 arising out of T. Ext. Case No. 12/2012, thereby dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 read with section 151 CPC by refusing to accept that the appellant herein was a stranger in the proceeding of T.S. No. 7/2008 which was decreed on compromise by judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 by the same learned Court.

5. The challenge in CRP 222/16 is the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in M.S. No. 9/2013, whereby the said learned Court had dismissed petition No. 1559/13, filed by the petitioners/appellants herein under section 10 CPC for staying the proceedings of M.S. No. 9/2013.

6. In the proceeding of the Contempt Case No.829/15, the petitioners have alleged willful disobedience and violation of the order dated 20.11.2013, passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 3360/13, arising out of RFA 54/2013.

7. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for both sides, it appears to this Court that in the proceeding of RFA No. 54/2013 is adjudicated at first as a lead case, it would affect the result of the remaining 3 matters. Hence this Court proposes to first deal with RFA No. 54/2013.

RFA No. 54/2013 :

8. The respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Shri Kailash Kr. Sharma is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 3/2008. The said suit was instituted on 17.03.2008 against the following - (1) Shristi C/o. Manas Valley Academy, (2) Shri Sanjit Mudoi, President of Shristi, (3) Shri Sushanto Ghatak, Secretary Shristi, who are the 3 principle defendants in the suit. These 3 defendants are the appellants herein. The following persons, namely - (1) Smt. Bhagabati Devi Sharma, (2) Shri Mahesh Kr. Sarma, (3) Shri Baka Bihari Sharma, (4) Shri Prahlad Kr. Sharma, (5) Smt. Manju Devi Sharma, (6) Smt. Kusum Kumari Sharma, (7) Smt. Anju Devi Sharma, (8) Smt. Bandana Devi Sharma, (9) Shri Subhash Jain, (10) Shri Ashoka Kr. Jain, and (11) Shri Ram Avatar Sharma were arrayed as proforma defendant Nos. 1 to 11 in the said suit and they are also arrayed as proforma respondent Nos. 1 to 11 in this appeal.

9. In brief, the case of the respondent No.1 in the plaint is that the proforma respondent No.1 is the wife and he as well as the proforma respondents No. 2 to 8 are the sons and daughters of Late Satyaban Sharma and all of them were holding un-partitioned landed property in Bohorihat and Barpeta Road in Barpeta District, in Titabar in Jorhat District, as well as in Thakurganj in West Bengal. All the said properties were all left behind by Late Satyaban Sharma, their predecessor-in- interest. The land at Barpeta Road, which is the subject matter of the suit, was more-fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. It was projected that the land measuring 5 Bighas- 1 Katha-4 lesas ("bigha, katha and lesas is hereinafter referred to as "B", "K" and "L" for short), which remained in the share of Late Satyaban Sharma, the predecessor of respondent No.1, is described in Schedule B of the plaint with definite boundaries mentioned therein. The said land was covered within Dag 1713, 1714, 1716, 1717 under KP Patta No. 384 at Barpeta