- (1.) Since a common question of law is involved in both these revisional applications, both the aforesaid revisional applications were heard analogously. As a matter of fact, in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the opposite party No.1 herein against the opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4, two sets of applications for addition of parties were filed by two sets of applicants. Both the aforesaid applications for addition of parties, were rejected by the learned Trial Judge by a common order being No. 36 dated 15th September, 2008. Both the applicants challenged the propriety of the said order by filing their respective applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Mr. Ray Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.
(3.) Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the fact of the instant case. The instant suit was filed by the deities represented by its next friend and priest namely, Hardwar Tewari against the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein inter alia praying to a declaration that the deed of gift dated 23rd April, 2004 executed by Sankar Krishan Kutti the defendant No.1 herein and the subsequent deed of declaration dated 21st December, 2004 are illegal, void and not enforceable in law and same are not binding upon the plaintiff. A decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendants from acting upon the said deed of gift dated 23rd April, 2004 and from taking any step and/or steps pursuant to the deed of gift in any manner whatsoever. Various other incidental reliefs were also claimed in the said suit.;