Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)On perusal of the affidavit of service and being satisfied about the service effected the O. P. I find that dispite of service no one on behalf of the O. P. has appeared at the time of call.
(2.)On perusal of the petition and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the petitioner has filed an application for transposition of Sudipta Sarkar from the category of the plaintiff to the category of the defendant to figure as defendant No. 2 in the suit. But, it is really unfortunate that the learned Court below disallowed the claim since the petition contained more than one prayer. This cannot be a ground to refuse the prayer for transposition if is not otherwise lawfully excluded. The Court exists for doing substantial Justice to the parties where technicalities should not torture them in the lie. It is a substantial Justice which will aid the relied. I am not at all satisfied with the reasonings reflected in the order impugned by the learned Court below for the reasons indicated above and displace the order allowing the application filed by the plaintiff on 18.5.91 substituting Sudipta Sarkar as defendant No. 2. The revisional application is accordingly disposed of with the above observations.
;