- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.
(2.) Assailing the Order No. 40 dated 19th September, 2013the petitioner herein (added defendant no. 7 of the original suit), the petitioner herein states that he acquired title in respect of a portion of the plot in question which is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 167 of 2008, pending before the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. He filed an application before learned court below on 13th September, 2012 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission of the court concerned for causing repair of the premises under his occupation in terms of the Schedule of the application dated 13th September, 2012. While dealing with the said application, the learned Court below held as follows : The defendant no. 7 by virtue of a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 14.3.07 purchased undivided one-third share of defendant no. 2 and 3 which has been challenged by the plaintiffs in this case. Therefore, before completion of trial it cannot be said as to whether the purchase of defendant no. 7 was legal and valid or not. Moreover, no local inspection was held at the instance of the defendant no. 7 to show the present condition of the premises under occupation of the defendant no. 7 and to ascertain whether any repair work is actually necessary or not. In that view of the matter, I am not in agreement with the submission made by the Ld. lawyer for the defendant no. 7 and accordingly, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the defendant no. 7 .
(3.) The learned Counsel for the opposite parties, in course of hearing, pointed out that since the deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of the disputed property has been challenged in the original suit, his title in respect of the same is questionable before the court below and he further opined that learned court below was justified in rejecting his prayer.;