- (1.) This revisional application as per Article 227 of Constitution of India is at the instance of defendants and is directed against Order No.67 dated 9.12.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore, in connection with Title Suit No.28 of 1997.
(2.) The said suit was brought by the present opposite parties against the present petitioners.
(3.) The fact leading to the filing of the said suit may be summed up thus : - (i) That the present opposite parties filed a suit praying for declaration that the opposite parties became the absolute owners of the suit properties by way of adverse possession and also prayed for declaration that the lease deed dated 22.8.1973 is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.The opposite parties also prayed for declaration that the ex-parte eviction decree dated 11.9.1975 passed in connection with T S. No. 144 of 1974 is void. Other consequential reliefs including perpetual injunction etc. were prayed for in that suit. The said suit was numbered as T.S.No.28 of 1997 and is pending before the learned 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Alipore. (ii) The present petitioners appeared and filed written statement in that case. (iii) It is the case of the plaintiffs of that case that the property as mentioned in Schedule-'A' of the plaint originally belonged to one Asit Kumar Ghosh and during his lifetime, the said property was leased out to petitioner No.1 of this revisional application. The said deed of lease was for 99 years and was duly registered. In the year 1934, the executor of the estate Akshay Kumar Ghosh, since deceased, granted monthly tenancy to one Mr. E. A.Hartley in respect of the suit premises and after death of the said E.A.Hartley, his son namely E. G. Hartley became tenant on the basis of his request. (iv) In the year 1950 E.G.Hartley left India permanently and settled at U.K. However, without knowledge of the original owner, he let out the leasehold property to the plaintiff/opposite parly No.1 and since then the O. P. No.1 is in wrongful possession of the property as a trespasser. (v) One ejectment suit was filed against E. G. Hartley which was numbered as T. S. No. 144 of 1974 and the said suit was decreed on 11.9.1975 ex parte. On the basis of the said ex-parte decree, one execution case was filed which was numbered as T. Ex. Case No. 15 of 1976 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, at Alipore which is still pending. (vi) Long after passing of the said decree, the present opposite parties filed the suit before the 4th Assistant District Judge, Alipore in which the ex parte decree of ejectment passed in connection with T. S. No. 144 of 1974 is the subject-matter. (vii) During pendency of the said suit, another suit being T. S. No. 213 of 2002 was filed by the present opposite parties before the 9th Judge, City Civil Court for declaration that he is one of the Director and Shareholder of the Northern Properties Private Limited and prayed for injunction and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff Dilip Chand Kankaria moved one application under Order 40 Rule 1 C. P. Code for appointment of Receivers over the properties which was allowed by the Court on 30.10.2002. The plaintiff along with one Smt. Bratati Das, Advocate were appointed as joint Receivers over the properties of Northern Properties Private Limited including the suit property. However, the said order regarding appointment of Joint Receivers was passed ex parte. (viii) The present petitioners appeared and filed one application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.Code praying for rejection of the plaint as a preliminary ground. The said application was allowed by the Judge, City Civil Court and by order dated 20.6.2003, the learned Judge, City Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the filing lawyer so that the same can be filed before the appropriate forum. (xi) It is the case of the present petitioners that after the order of return of plaint was passed, The existence of the order regarding appointment of Receivers ceased. (x) Subsequently, the plaintiffs of T.S. No.28 of 1997 filed application for addition of parties with respect to the Receivers who were appointed by the Judge, City Civil Court. (xi) The said application was opposed by the defendants of that case by filing written objection. (xii) By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge allowed the application for addition of parties thereby making the Receivers as parties to the said suit.;