Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order Nos.30, 31 and 32 dated May 23, 2011, May 25, 2011 and June 15, 2011 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Basirhat in Title Suit No.75 of 2007 thereby dismissing an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. and awarding costs.
(2.) THE plaintiffs / petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.75 of 2007 against the opposite party praying for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. THE defendant / opposite party herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable, it suffers from defect of parties and is barred under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. THE defendant has also denied the material allegations contained in the plaint. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their contentions and the suit was at the stage of hearing argument over the suit. At that stage, only the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 which was rejected by the impugned order with costs. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the short question involved in the matter is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 8 an awarding costs. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs have filed the suit praying for the following reliefs:- i) The plaintiffs pray for a decree of declaration of title over the undivided share in the suit property as described in the schedule A to the plaint, ii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession in respect of the suit property, iii) Permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of B scheduled property from disturbing plaintiffs peaceful possession, iv) Temporary injunction, and v) Other reliefs. Both the parties had adduced evidence in support of their contentions and the suit was at the stage of hearing argument over the suit. By the first impugned order dated May 23, 2011, the learned Trial Judge had rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. filed on that day without costs fixing the next date on May 25, 2011 for further argument with indication that no further time would be granted. Thereafter, on May 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed another application for adjournment of hearing argument on the ground that he would prefer an appeal against the order dated May 23, 2011. That application for adjournment was granted with cost of Rs.1,000/- fixing the next date as June 15, 2011 for argument and payment of costs.
(3.) THEREAFTER, on June 15, 2011 the plaintiffs filed another application for adjournment stating that they would move the Honble Court against the order dated May 23, 2011 and the prayer was adjourned at last chance with cost of Rs.300/-. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs. On perusal of the copy of the written statement, I find that it is a specific defence of the defendant that there are other cosharers in respect of the suit property and that suit is not maintainable for want of necessary parties. The defendant has also specifically stated in its written statement in paragraph no.11 that since the public interest is involved, unless and until, any permission is obtained under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C., the suit is liable to be dismissed. Copy of such written statement was served on October 8, 2007.;