Sri Balaram Singh and Ors. Vs Radhia Devi and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sri Balaram Singh and Ors. Vs Radhia Devi and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur and Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Islampur were necessary parties to Title Suit No.02 of 1997 and ought to be added under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. +1 more

Court's answer

None of the officials sought to be added — District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur and Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Islampur — were necessary parties to the suit; the entire effort to add them is absolutely devoid of merit, and the learned Trial Judge rightly observed so.

Ratio / Principle

In the aforesaid view, the instant revisional application challenging the Trial Judge's rejection is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly stands dismissed.

Key takeaways

On the alternative plea for liberty to adduce further evidence, the petitioners/plaintiffs remain entitled to file the application and the Learned Trial Judge is at liberty to decide such prayer according to law — the point is expressly left open to the Trial Judge.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction), C.O. 3188 of 2023, decided 11.12.2024: Sri Balram Singh & Ors. (petitioners/plaintiffs) challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2023 of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, which rejected their application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur and Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Islampur as parties to Title Suit No.02 of 1997 — a suit praying for declaration of right, title and interest over the subject property with consequential reliefs, the plaintiffs claiming their right through patta which required proof. Holding that none of these officials were necessary parties to the suit and that the entire effort was absolutely devoid of merit, the Court dismissed the revisional application and vacated any interim order. On the alternative submission, the petitioners/plaintiffs were left entitled to file the application afresh, with the Learned Trial Judge at liberty to decide that prayer according to law.

11.12.2024 Ct. No. 22 Sl. No.11 KB

In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

C.O. 3188 of 2023

Sri Balram Singh & Ors. -versusRadhia Devi & Ors.

Mr. Partha Chakraborty Mr. Muhammad Obaid … For the petitioners.

Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 3^rd July, 2023 passed in connection with Title Suit No.02 of 1997 wherein Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur rejected an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur, Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur and Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Islampur as parties.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the subject property along with consequential reliefs.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the right accrued in favour of the plaintiffs through patta which was required to be proved and that is why the application was filed with a prayer for adding those Government officials.

2

Alternatively, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that necessary liberty may be given to the plaintiffs/petitioners to adduce further evidence in this regard instead of allowing addition of any official in the suit.

Entire effort, in my opinion again, is absolutely devoid of merit and learned Judge rightly observed that none of these officials were necessary parties to the suit.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the instant application is liable to be dismissed.

So far as the liberty is concerned, petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled to file the application and Learned Judge is also at liberty to decide the prayer according to law.

With the aforesaid observations, the

revisional application stands dismissed.

Interim order, if there be any, stands

vacated.

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.