Smt. Meena Choudhary v. Shri A.S.Ratinam And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE CO/25/2022 SMT. MEENA CHOUDHARY ... PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

Versus

SHRI A.S.RATINAM AND ANOTHER ... OPPOSITE PARTIES/PLAINTIFFS For the petitioner/Defendant : Mr. Arul Prasanth For the Opposite parties/Plaintiffs :Mrs. Anjili Nag For the Opposite parties/Plaintiff No. 6 :Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Heard on : 14.12.2022 Judgment on : 16.12.2022 BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 59 dated 31.08.2022 passed in Other Suit No. 47 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair whereby learned judge allowed the substitution petitioner filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 on 21.08.2022 directing the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 to be impleaded in his place on account of death of defendant No. 1.

2.

The instant petition filed challenging that the order of substitution passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division on the ground that the defendant No.1 had already sold the property in question by a sale deed executed on 27.11.2017 i.e. prior to filling of the suit on behalf of the defendant/opposite parties.

3.

As a matter of fact the Other Suit being No. 47 of 2018 was filed against the defendant with a prayer for restraining the petitioner/defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff/opposite parties without due processes of law. In course of hearing, Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant submits that prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff/opposite parties the property in question was sold by the defendant No.1 J.N.Choudhary who died subsequently in course of trial.

4.

According to Mr. Arul Prasanth, J.N.Choudhary was not at all a necessary party as he has already sold the land in question to the present petitioner of this revisional application. Therefore, question of substitution of legal heirs of that person does not arise. According to Mr. Prasanth learned Civil Judge Senior Division ignored the said fact. Mr. Prasanth has referred to the documents annexed with the petition and relevant dates of death of the defendant J.N.Choudhary and substitution of his legal heirs etc.

5.

In opposition to that, Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite parties has submitted that the suit was filed against J.N.Choudhary and the present petitioner so that the plaintiff/opposite party is not dispossessed without due process of law and, therefore, it is duty of the plaintiff to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased defendant J.N.Choudhary under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party that entire fact of sale of the property in question was suppressed for the reasons best known to the defendant.

6.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate on behalf to the substituted opposite party No. 6 also supported the arguments advanced on behalf the petitioner, Meena Choudhary. 7.

On careful perusal of the entire records it is needless to mention that the defendant J.N.Choudhary had no interest over the land in question where plaintiff/opposite party was tenant, after sale of the property in question by virtue of a deed dated 27.11.2017 in favour of Meena Choudnary/petitioner. Learned Civil Judge Senior Division also recorded the order to that effect. 8.

In view of the matter I have no hesitation to hold that J.N.Choudhary/defendant of the suit bearing No. 47 of 2018 was not at all a necessary party and, therefore, question of

substitution of legal heirs of that defendant/J.N.Choudhary does not arise.

9.

Thus, the order No. 59 dated 31.08.2022 passed in Other Suit No. 47 of 2018 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair stands set aside. Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

10.

Thus the revisional application being CO/25/2022 stands disposed of with a direction to make necessary correction/deletion in the cause title of the plaint in connection with Other Suit No. 47 of 2018.

11.

Let a copy of this judgement be communicated to the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair. (BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.)