JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 23.02.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 367 of 2021, arising out of Title Suit No. 200/2021.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Ratul Bora and Mrs Minati Bora, respondent No. 2 herein, in this case. The father of the petitioner, i.e. Ratul Bora was the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 764 of KP Patta No. 507 of Revenue Village Sahar Guwahat Part VII, under Mouza Ulubari in the district of Kamrup (Metro). Ratul Bora expired on 17.04.2013 and after his expiry, the petitioner, her mother Minati Bora, and her brother, Rupam Bora became the absolute owners of the said property. It is pertinent to state herein that the petitioner is staying in Bangalore since 2018 in connection with her job and used to visit Guwahati occasionally.

4. After expiry of Ratul Bora, the respondent No. 2, who is the mother of the petitioner, without the consent of the petitioner and in collusion with Rajib Bhargav and Sandeep Bhargav, Director of INCLITS CORE VENTURES Pvt. Ltd., mutated the aforesaid land in question in the name of the respondent No. 2, i.e. the mother of the petitioner. After mutation, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a Development Agreement as well as Irrevocable Power Of Attorney in connection with the said land.

5. Admittedly, the land in question is a joint property of the legal heirs of Late Ratul Bora and the same has not been partitioned between the legal heirs of Late Ratul Bora. It is further stated in the petition that in the development agreement dated 20.12.2019, it is mentioned that-“first party shall provide the second party with necessary clearance/affidavit from her son, Shri Rupam Bora and her daughter Miss Ronmi Bora, whenever necessary” meaning thereby the respondent No. 1 had full knowledge about the fact that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs and co-owners of the land in question and knowing fully well, the respondent No. 1 entered into the agreement dated 20.12.2019 with the respondent No. 2.

6. After execution of the Development Agreement as well as the Power of Attorney, the respondent No. 2 applied for permission for construction before the concerned authority. The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) on 02.06.2020, issued permission for construction. Thereafter, on 18.02.2021, the counsel for the petitioner sent a legal notice to the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA, praying for cancellation of the permission dated 02.06.2020. When the petitioner raised her objection before the respondents, the respondents assured the petitioner that her interest will be protected. But the petitioner did not agree to give her share of land for development and construction of multi-storied building and demanded for cancellation of the Development Agreement as well as the Power of Attorney.

7. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 preferred a Title Suit being T.S. No. 200/2021, before the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, praying for specific performance of the agreement executed by the respondent No. 2 with the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has not been made a party/defendant in the said suit. When the petitioner came to know about institution of the Title Suit No. 200/2021, the petitioner has preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, praying for her impleadment as well as her brother Rupam Bora in the said Title Suit i.e. T.S. No. 200/2021. The said application was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 367/2021. The respondent No. 1 has submitted his written objection to the said Misc. (J) Case No. 367/2021, before the learned trial Court. In the said written objection,