##PAGE1##

AD-08

Ct No.16

24.12.2025

TN

FA 87 of 2025

IA No: CAN 4 of 2023

Sri Somnath Nath and others

Vs.

Smt. Jharna Pal and others

Mr. Meghnad Dutta,

Mr. Basudeb Patra

…..for the appellants

Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra

….for the respondents

1. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on change for

the respondents, submits that he is not equipped with

the copies of the applications.

2. The learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants is

requested to furnish further copies of the applications

to Mr. Mitra.

3. However, in view of the nature of the order proposed

to be passed on CAN 4 of 2023, we are not insisting

upon prior further service of copy of the same on the

respondents.

4. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and

eviction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the

defendants/appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that

subsequent to the passing of the decree, it came to the

notice of the appellants, who, being laymen, were not

2

properly advised previously and were not aware of

their rights, that the appellants, being occupiers of the

suit property under the The West Bengal Acquisition

of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers,

Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (for short “the 1975

Act”), are immune to any suit being instituted by dint

of Section 12 of the said Act.

6. However, learned counsel candidly submits that such

submission having not been made in the trial court,

nor pleaded in the written statement, an application

for production of additional evidence has been filed

before this Court, which has been directed by a

coordinate Bench to be heard along with the appeal.

7. CAN 4 of 2023 is an application for addition of the

concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L.

& L.R.O) as a party to the appeal on the premise that

the said officer can shed further light and produce the

original records to establish the new case being

sought to be made out by the appellants in the appeal.

8. However, upon hearing learned counsel for the

parties, we find that, on such premise, at best the

Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sankrail,

Howrah might have been a witness to the suit, in the

event a defence is permitted to be taken in that regard

at this belated stage, invoking the provisions of the

1975 Act, and further evidence is permitted at all to

be adduced by the appellants.

3

9. However, in view of the frame of the suit, the cause of

action is inter partes and the B.L. & L.R.O is neither a

necessary nor a proper party to the suit, nor has any

relief been sought against the B.L. & L.R.O.

10. Accordingly, CAN 4 of 2023 is dismissed on contest

without any order as to costs.

11. Leave is granted to the respondents to file their

affidavit(s)-in-opposition, if any, to the application

under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, that is, CAN 1 of 2022, by January 16,

2026. Reply/replies thereto, if any, shall be filed by

January 30, 2026.

12. Leave is granted to the parties to mention the appeal

for enlistment as and when the same is ready for

hearing.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)