A trial court must respect the plaintiff's dominus litis status and cannot compel a plaintiff to pursue claims against new defendants without their consent, especially if a sale occurred during an imposed status quo.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. None has appeared for the respondents in spite of due service of notice on them, hence, this matter was heard ex-parte against the respondents.

3. This Civil Revision Petition (IO) has been preferred by the petitioner, namely, Dasarath Prasad, impugning the order dated 27.09.2023, passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 30/2022, arising out of Title Suit No. 19/2011, by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, North Lakhimpur by which the prayer for impleadment of the new defendants, namely, Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain, and striking out of the names of original defendants in the aforesaid title suit was allowed.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant civil revision petition, in brief, are that the predecessor in interest of the present respondents, namely, Sayeda Rubia Begum along with her daughter, namely, Nazifa Sultana Hussain had jointly filed the Title Suit No. 11/2010 against the present petitioner for the relief of his eviction from the suit premises mainly on the ground of defaulter in payment of rents and of bona fide requirement.

5. It is pertinent to mention herein that the suit premises measure about 10 ft. X 59 ft. The present petitioner contested the said suit by filing his written statement. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, on 29.05.2011, major portion of the suit premises was gutted by fire and was burned down. Accordingly, the plaintiffs at that point of time, filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, on 01.06.2011, praying for allowing them to withdraw the suit, as the suit premises itself got burnt down due to the fire. However, the aforesaid application was not pressed by them. They submitted similar application subsequently also. It is contended by the petitioner that though the major portion of the suit property was damaged due to fire, however, there was a toilet in the suit premises, which was used as a godown and was not damaged and the present petitioner continued to remain in possession of the same.

6. After the fire incident, the petitioner as plaintiff had filed another suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 19/2011 before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 against the said Sayeda Rubia Begum with a prayer for directing the defendant to repair/renovate the damaged suit premises.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that though the tenanted premises were shown in the tenancy agreement as covering an area of 10 ft. X 59 ft., however, actually it was 10 ft. X 90 ft. In this regard, the petitioner approached the Trial Court for measurement of the entire tenanted premises by filing a petition. However, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for measurement of the suit premises. Against the rejection order, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition (IO), which was registered as CRP(IO) No. 292/2010 and the High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019 directed the measurement of the suit premises.

8. It is also contended that the defendant No. 1, late Sayeda Rubia Begum had appointed her son, namely, Nazrul Hussain as her attorney holder, who used to take all steps in the suit filed by the present petitioners.

9. The respondent No. 1, who was also the attorney holder of the original plaintiff filed a petition before the Trial Court, inter alia, stating that the suit property has been sold on 26.04.2016 to two brothers, namely, Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain by a registered sale deed bearing No. 107/2016. It was contended that the said sale deed was executed, by one Muhiuddin Laskar, as