Calcutta High CourtCO/10/2024disposed

H. Gulam Farid v. S. Pandiammal And ORS

2024-09-24Hon'Ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/10/2024 H. Gulam Farid Vs.

S. Pandiammal and Others Mr. Nadeem Akhtar Khan .... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent nos.2 to 9 Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the respondent no.1 September 24, 2024 [SR] Item No.7 This revisional application is directed against an order passed in an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order impleading the respondent no.1 had been erroneously passed and the respondent no.1 was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit.

On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted that the suit is for declaration and possession of government land. The subject land is being used by the respondent no.1 for ingress and egress. It is further contended that the plaintiff has occupied the said government land without authority of law. In this background, the opposite party no.1 had lodged a complaint before the Tehsildar, in the year 2013 and proceedings had been initiated on the basis thereof.

It is further alleged that the petitioner has blocked the ingress and egress of the respondent no.1. Hence, any order passed in the suit would adversely affect the rights of the respondent no.1. The

submission made on behalf of the respondent no.1 that any portion of the suit premises is being used as footpath by the petitioner is disputed by the petitioner.

The suit is for declaration and possession. The respondent no.1 is the recorded tenant of land bearing survey no.203/2 which is adjacent and contiguous to the suit premises. The grievance of the respondent no.1 is directed towards illegal encroachment by the plaintiff of government land.

The impugned order is reasoned and has been passed on merits. The respondent no.1 has been found to be a proper and necessary party to the suit and is required to be impleaded for effective adjudication of the disputes. The respondent no.1 would ultimately be affected by any order in the suit. Accordingly the impugned order warrants no interference whatsoever. In view of the above, there are no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. CO/10/2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. )