12.9.2025

432 sb CO 3882 of 2024 Sk. Nabibur Rahaman & Ors.

Vs.

Saidul Mallick & Anr.

Ms. Soumita Dutta …for the Petitioners Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya …for the O.P. no. 1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no.

25 dated 7^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Suit no. 212 of 2022, the petitioners have preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein and whereby the Trial court has rejected the petitioners’ application for adding them as parties in the suit under the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial court has rejected the petitioners’ prayer without appreciating that the right, title and interest of the petitioners have to be prejudiced, if the suit is heard in the absence of the present petitioners. Court below also failed to appreciate that plaintiff has shown the petitioners land as his own, which is clear from the sketch map annexed with the plaint, where plaintiff is claiming decree of ownership over a strip of land which falls within the plot of land owned by the petitioners and therefore petitioners are the necessary parties in the suit.

The opposite party no. 1 herein instituted the instant suit for declaration and injunction in respect of A and A1 schedule property comprising of LR plot no. 457 and 461. It is also the plaintiff’s case that A1 schedule property is part of A schedule property in LR plot no. 457. Learned Trial court by an order dated 8^th May, 2023 passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance on the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. A local inspection commission was also held in connection with the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the injunction order records that “during the commission work, commissioner did not find the existence of any passage or any slide over the A1 schedule property and he also mentioned that there is no egress and ingress way of plot no. 463 belongs to the defendant except the statutory space of Nabibur and others property situated at plot no. 462 and 464”.

Petitioners counsel further submits that the Trial court has rejected his prayer ignoring the plaint case and the sketch map attached to the plaint and without appreciating that the petitioners have specifically made out a case and that the plaintiff is claiming decree of ownership over that strip of land which falls within the plot of land owned by the petitioners herein.

Accordingly, if any decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs, right of the petitioners on their property shall be seriously prejudiced and accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the order impugned and to allow the present petitioners to be impleaded in the category of defendants in the said suit.

Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer contending that from the plaint itself, it is clear that the plaintiff has sought for declaration and injunction in respect of the property mentioned in A and A1 schedule property which is owned by the plaintiffs/petitioners. Since plaintiff has not sought for any relief against the petitioners herein nor in respect of the land owned by the present petitioners, there is no requirement that the suit is to be heard in the presence of the present petitioners. Accordingly, he submits that the order of the Trial court is justified and does not call for interference by this court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have gone through the order impugned which discloses that the learned court below, on perusal of the plaint found that the plaintiff’s suit is for declaration of A and A1 schedule property of the plaint along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using A1 schedule property and causing any damage and restraining from creating any pa