IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury C.O. 282 of 2023 Panchanan Mandal & Ors.

VERSUS Sonali Sultana & Ors.

For the petitioner: Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Adv.

Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Shuvanil Chakraborty, Adv. for the opposite party nos. 6-10 Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Kundu, Adv.

Last Heard on: March 21, 2025 Judgment on: March 27, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

1. The petitioner before this Court is a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 22-03- 2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Jangipur in Title Suit No-114 of 2011. The petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Court in allowing the application of opposite parties no-6 to 10 for addition of parties has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the opposite parties no-6 to 10 in the application for addition of parties may be summed up thus.

It is contended by the opposite parties no-6 to 10/applicants that by sale Deed dated 1-06-1960 Smt Sarala Bala Devi transferred the suit property to one Santi Lal Jain which was a registered deed being No-5139/1960 dated 1- 06-1960. Santi Lal Jain subsequently sold the said property to one Subhash Chandra Singha Ray Digar on 2-08-1960. Vide Deed No. 6501/1960. The said Subhas Chandra Singha Ray Digar by virtue of Deed No-7976/1968 dated 03- 09-1968 sold a portion of the said property to one Jyotsna Bibi on 06.09.1968. Vide Deed No-8000/1960 and sold the remaining portion to M.D. Afan Sheikh by virtue of another Deed of Conveyance dated 06.09.2008 vide Deed No. 8001/1960. Later by virtue of another Deed being Deed No-7349/1979 said Kasad Ali Sheikh sold his share to Kalu Sheikh the father of the Applicants/opposite parties 6 to 10 on 3-08-1979. Subsequently the father of the opposite party no-6 to 10/applicants executed a Heba-bil Ewaz in favour of the opposite party No. 10, on 17/08/1998 vide Deed No. 1463/1998. The applicants contended that they were all along in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs and the Original Defendants have no right title interest over the suit property.

3. The petitioners/Plaintiffs and the original defendants filed objection to the petition for addition of parties.

4. By Order dated 22/03/2022 Learned Trial Court was pleased to dispose the application for addition of parties by observing and directing as follows:

‘Today is fixed for passing order over the petition filed by the applicant side desiring impleadment in this suit. Heard the plaintiff side, the defendant side and the applicant side and considered the relevant documents.

The plaintiff side asserts its stake over the suit property vide its purchase deed of 2006 while the present defendant are staking their claim over the suit property vide the purchase deed of 1959. The instant applicants are staking their claim over the suit property on the strength of their purchase deed of 1960. In this regard, the plaintiff side objection on the impleadment of the applicant is that it is causing no disturbance to his peaceful possession. Be that as if may, this non-disturbance may amount to any no injunction prayer against the applicants. But when the question comes to deciding the title over the suit property, then though neither of the defendant not the applicants shall get any positive right in this suit but at the most can frustrate the plaintiffs case. The document of the applicant side and its stake from the year 1960 is highly relevant in context of the plaintiff side’s stake since 2006. Thus, after considering all the legal possibilities and for the ends of justice, hence it is ORDERED That the applicant be impleaded as a party in this suit as a defendant.

The rival claim of the present applicant is sufficient cause for the plaintiff to implead them a