- (1.) The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their tenancy right in respect of the suit property and for injunction so that their possession in the suit property and their enjoyment of the amenities in the tenancy are not disturbed by the defendants without due process of law.
(2.) The defendant No.4 entered appearance in the said suit and has also filed written statement therein. After entering appearance in the said suit, the said defendant filed an application by inviting the learned Trial Judge to pass a direction upon the plaintiff No.3 to appear in person before the Court for ascertaining as to whether the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 filed the said suit by fraudulently impleading the plaintiff No.3 in the said suit. It was stated by the said defendant in the said application that the said defendant apprehends that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 might have forged the signature of the plaintiff No.3 in filing the said suit.
(3.) In substance, the said defendant wants to indicate that the plaintiff No.3 has not filed the said suit and he has neither instructed the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 to file the said suit on his behalf nor the said suit was filed by those plaintiffs under his instruction. Though the plaintiffs took adjournment for filing objection against the said application of the defendant but ultimately they did not file any objection and as a result the learned Trial Judge allowed the defendant's said application by an order dated 3rd June, 2010 with the impression that since the plaintiffs did not object to such prayer of the defendant, the plaintiffs have no objection if the plaintiff No.3 is directed to appear personally in Court. Accordingly the defendant's said prayer was allowed and the plaintiff No.3 was directed to appear personally in Court on 27th July, 2010 at 2 P.M.;