- (1.) The revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the Sri Rana Dam, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Chandernagore in Title Suit No. 42 of 2005 whereby the learned Trial Judge directed the plaintiff to put in necessary Court-fees on the value of a deed of sale by 11.5.2006 and kept the preemptory hearing of the suit in abeyance.
(2.) The propriety of such order is under challenge in this application at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The petitioner/plaintiff Pintu Santra and three others instituted the suit referred to above against the present opposite parties Sambhunath Samanta and eight others praying for the following reliefs; a) a declaration to the effect that the suit property described in the scheduled appended to the plaint is joint and undivided property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 9; b) a declaration to the effect that the sale deed by defendant Nos. 4 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on 29.8.2002 in respect of some portion of the disputed property is ineffective and not acted upon; c) a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have 1/7th share each in the suit property; d) a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and other reliefs.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court is that the property in dispute was originally belonging to their predecessor in interest Arabindo Jana. On his death, the property was devolved upon the defendant the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 4 to 9 had been possessing the property jointly without effecting any petition by metes and bound. Sometime in the year 2005, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 obstructed the plaintiffs to enter into the suit property and caused disturbance in their possession over the suit property on the ground that they purchased the shares of the defendant Nos. 4 to 9 by registered deed on 29.8.2002. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not agree to the proposal of the plaintiffs to get property pertitioned mutually and denied the joint right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. So, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for the reliefs mentioned earlier.;