- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 did not raise any objection against the prayer of the present petitioner. In this revisional application, the Order No. 32 dated 13.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat in O.S. No. 4 of 2012 has been called in question. In the order impugned, the learned Court below while disposing of the application under Order 1, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that the plaintiffs of the O.S. No. 4 of 2012 being the Testators of the Will executed by their father late Satya Krishna Das Sharma held that the plaintiffs are not in a position to pursue the matter together and further held that the only appropriate course left before the court is to order for transposition of one of the plaintiffs to the category of the defendant.
(2.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in course of hearing, drew my attention to the order impugned passed by the learned court below and submitted that the learned court below observed that plaintiff no. 2, being a reluctant plaintiff, be made a defendant of the said suit. Frankly speaking no reason has been shown what prompted him to make such observation in the order impugned. Since the suit was filed jointly by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1. Both of them are at liberty to establish their own case in their own way and the court has no right to transpose either of the parties which might be detrimental to the interest of either of the parties.
(3.) Hence, the order impugned stands set aside and the caustic remarks 'reluctant plaintiff' against the present petitioner in the order impugned stands expunged. The petitioner is at liberty to file affidavit in terms of Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure separately in the Probate Proceeding. With these observations and directions, this revisional application stands disposed of. I make no order as to costs.;