Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of substituted plaintiffs and is directed against order dated August 14, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Civil Revision No. 386 of 1999 thereby affirming Order No. 102 dated August 10, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 194 of 1989 allowing an application for amendment of plaint.'
(2.) In the year 1989, the original plaintiff, since deceased, filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that a sale deed standing in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and purportedly executed by him was out and out fraudulent and invalid and was not binding upon the plaintiff and that by virtue of the said deed no title passed in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1. and 2 and their men and agent from transferring or encumbering the suit property.
(3.) The case made out by the original plaintiff in the suit was that he was given to understand by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that a power of attorney was prepared authorising the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to take step in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for mutation on behalf of the plaintiff. But ultimately it appeared that the same was a purported sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 although no money was paid to the plaintiff. It was also stated in the plaint that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of one room as a licensee and the original plaintiff craved leave to file a separate suit for recovery of possession from defendant Nos. 1 and 2.;