The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

Prayer:

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 370 of 2022 corresponding to Original Suit No. 230 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petition dated 16.08.2022 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed.

Facts:

2. The brief facts of the case, required to be referred herein, is as follows:

The petitioner instituted suit for a declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession as also for a decree of perpetual injunction stating inter alia that the suit property situated in mouza Kapasara, Mouza No. 255, Khata No. 60, Plot No. 315, Area 6 decimals belong to Prabodh Chandra Gorai, who purchased the aforesaid property vide registered deed of sale being deed no. 11947 dated 14.07.1965.

The said Prabodh Chandra Gorai died leaving behind the plaintiff as legal heir and successor. The part of the aforesaid property has been forcefully occupied by the defendants, as such, notices were issued to the defendants, however, despite service of notice no defendant is appeared in the suit.

During pendency of the suit, the intervenor, i.e., respondent 1st set filed a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC dated 16.08.2022 stating that the intervenor purchased the disputed property from the father of the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed being deed no.1858 dated 27.02.1981. The intervenor further stated that the defendant no.1 was inducted as a tenant by the intervenor on 01.01.2019 on a monthly rent of Rs.800/-and the defendant no.2’s deceased husband was the tenant of the intervenor since 2002 and after his death, defendant no.2 entered into a fresh agreement for tenancy on 24.01.2020 on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-per month. The defendant no. 3 was also a tenant who vacated the premises on 09.08.2022. The intervenor therefore prayed to be impleaded as defendant no. 4 in the suit.

The petitioner filed an objection-cum-rejoinder dated 07.11.2022 to the aforesaid petition stating inter alia that the averments made in the application for intervention is false and frivolous, which is evident from the fact that the alleged registered deed being deed no. 1858 dated 27.02.1981 is void ab initio as the purchaser was just nine years old at the relevant time and he was a minor. The petitioner further stated that no such sale deed was ever executed by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner further disputed the rent agreement dated 11.08.2022 as the same was manufactured and created after institution of the suit on 26.05.2022.

It is the case of the petitioner that the learned court below without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, has allowed the petition of the intervenor vide order dated 16.02.2023, which is under challenge in this petition.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that a suit for declaration of right and title over the land in question, thereafter, a petition has been filed on 16.08.2022 on behalf of the respondent no.1, namely, Shambhu Nath Gorai, for impleadment as party as per the provision made under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC on the ground that he claims the ownership over the property by virtue of registered sale deed being deed no. 1858 dated 27.02.1981. Further, he also claims possession over the scheduled land since then.

He has further claimed that the tenants in the scheduled property who are the tenants are the current tenant of the petitioner.

Objection has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 07.11.2022 wherein inter alia ground has been taken regarding its maintainability as also the prayer which has been sought for for impleadment which is based upon two deeds, one being deed no. 1858 dated 27.02.1981 and another being adoption deed no. 161 dated 19.12.1988 which according to the plaintiff, the petitioner herein, are ab initio void reason being that the purchaser was a minor b