- (1.) This revisional application, at the instance of the proforma defendant nos. 26 and 27 petitioners is directed against the orders dated July 08, 2008 and July 14, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 3 of 2006 (originally numbered as T.S. No. 138 of 2005).
(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to this revisional application lay in a very narrow compass and they may be briefly set out as follows. The plaintiff opposite no. 1 filed the Title Suit No. 3 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the said suit") claiming, inter alia, decree for specific performance of contract of sale dated May 5, 2005 in respect of the suit property situate at Premises Nos, 3 and 4 Mahendra Roy Lane, P.S. Topsia, District- South 24 Parganas, (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") against the defendant nos. 1 to 25, a decree for confirmation of its possession of the suit property and a decree directing the defendant nos. 1 to 25 to execute and register the deed of conveyance/sale in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioners in this revisional application are impleaded as the proforma defendant nos. 26 and 27 and no relief has been claimed against them. The petitioners, as the proforma defendants in the said suit, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") before the learned Court below, praying for rejection of the plaint filed in the said suit. In the said application, the petitioners urged that they are the owners of the suit property, the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 had earlier filed similar suit, being T.S. No. 272 of 2005 against the same defendants claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the agreement for sale dated May 05, 2005 in respect of the same suit property is binding upon the same defendant nos. 1 to 25 and the same was pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah. The opposite party nos. 2 to 26 in this application are the defendant nos. 1 to 25 in the said suit as also in the said T.S. No. 272 of 2005 and the petitioners in this revisional application are the proforma defendant nos. 26 and 27 in both the suits. While the said application of the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was pending, the plaintiff opposite no. 1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint filed in the said suit and by an order dated March 29, 2006 the learned Court below allowed the said application of the plaintiff opposite party no. 1. The petitioners challenged the said order of the learned Court below by filing a revisional application before this Court and the same was also rejected by this Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 amended the plaint filed in the said suit and served a copy of the same on all the defendants, including the petitioners. On August 22, 2007, the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 filed the second application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, praying for amendment of the plaint filed in the said suit by incorporating the relief for damages against the defendant nos. 1 to 25.
(3.) On July 08, 2008 the petitioners, as the proforma defendants in the said suit filed an application before the learned Court below praying for, that before considering the second amendment application filed by the plaintiff, their pending application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code should be decided first. The learned Court below, however, did not pass any interim order in the said application and fixed the next date for hearing of all the application on July 14, 2008. On July 14, 2008 the petitioners refused to make any submission to oppose the amendment application of the plaintiff opposite party and insisted that their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code be disposed of first. However, by an order dated July 08, 2008, the learned Court below allowed the second amendment application of the plaintiff opposite party no.1. As recorded above, in this revisional application the proforma defendants petitioners have assailed both the said order dated July 08, 2008 and July 14, 2008 passed by the learned Court below.;