- (1.) THIS revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution and is directed against order dated 31. 1. 2007 passed by the learned additional District Judge, First Court, Howrah, in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 281 of 2006.
(2.) THE said appeal was preferred by the present petitioners against the Order No. 6 dated 1. 11. 2006 passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge, junior Division, Howrah in connection with T. S. No. 127 of 2006.
(3.) THE fact leading to filing of the said suit may be summed up thus: - (i) That the present petitioners who were plaintiffs in the said suit along with proforma defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were the owners of the property in question, details of which were mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. They became owners of the said property after demise of their parents. (ii) The plaintiffs took the specific plea in the said suit that the proforma defendant Nos. 3 to 5 who are their brothers asked them along with their mother to execute one agreement in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the said agreement would be for development of the property in question. They, also told the plaintiffs that they would be provided with separate flats, shop and cash money after the premises in question is developed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are the developer/promoter. Being prevailed over by the said proforma defendants, the plaintiffs executed one deed which, in their opinion was on agreement for development of the property in question. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that subsequently they found some unknown persons in the property in question during their visit. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in spite of their repeated demands/requests, their brothers did not provide them with copy of the agreement. (iii) Subsequently, they came to know that the deed in question is nothing but power of attorney which was executed by them without understanding the contents thereof. (iv) It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as they were not well educated, it was not possible for them to go through the contents of the agreement and the contents of the said agreement were never read over and explained to them. They were given some money but subsequently the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refused to provide them with any separate flat. (v) Finding no other alternative they had to file the case and also filed one application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. (vi) By order dated 1. 11. 2006, their prayer for injunction was rejected by the learned 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Howrah and against that order the present petitioners being the plaintiffs in the said suit preferred one Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 281 of 2006. (vii) By the order impugned the learned First Additional District judge, Howrah dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Howrah. ;