- (1.) Heard the learned advocates for both the sides. Challenge is to the Order No.26 dated May 7, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal in Title Suit No.89 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application for addition of party filed by a third party.
(2.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property described in schedule 'Ka' & 'Kha' property against the opposite party nos.2 to 4. In that suit the third party, i.e., the petitioner herein has contended that the petitioner, by a deed of sale dated February 7, 2011 had purchased a portion of the 'Ka' schedule property from the plaintiff himself and as such, he has prayed for addition as a plaintiff of the suit. Mr. Jayanta Kr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has contended that impugned order suffers from material irregularity in view of the fact the applicant is in possession of the suit property and the original plaintiff is no more interested in proceeding with the suit.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has no objection if the applicant/petitioner herein is added as party as prayed for. The other opposite parties have contended that this application should be rejected in that view of the fact that, the said purchase had taken place during the pendency of the suit and so the sale is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.;