Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - (1.) The instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the opposite party of Misc. Case No.33 of 2001 challenging the legality, validity and propriety of Order No.112 dated July 26, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kalna rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the opposite party-petitioner.
(2.) The salient facts leading to the filing of the instant application are as follows. Opposite parties no.1-4 filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kalna which was registered as Misc. Case No.33 of 2012 for pre-emption of the case land which was purchased by the opposite party-petitioner from opposite party no.5. The said pre- emption case is at the stage of trial and evidence-in-chief of the witness on behalf of the petitioner was filed before the trial court. At this stage the petitioner came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code praying for amendment of written objection by incorporating certain facts to the effect that the petitioners-OPs no.2-4 never joined with the petitioner-OP no.1 to file the aforesaid pre-emption case. Their signatures with vokalatnama as well as on the application under section 8 of the said Act were obtained by the petitioner-OP no.1 by fraud. They only appeared before the court and the present OP no.1 alone has been contesting the said pre- emption case on a false plea that the application for pre- emption was filed by all the co-sharers in respect of the case land.
(3.) Learned trial Judge by passing the order impugned rejected the said application under Order VI Order 17 CPC on the following grounds - (a) OP no.1 has not disclosed the source of information that the petitioners no.2-4 did not put their signatures on the original application; (b) the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation were not stated in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the background facts leading to the opposite parties' contention that the petitioners no.2-4 were improperly joined; (c) the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed at a belated stage which, according to the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, cannot be entertained. Mr Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-OP no.1 submits that the pre-emption case was instituted in 2001. It was not within the knowledge of the petitioner that the OPs no.2-4 did not join with the OP no.1 to file the pre-emption application, and that practically they did not put their signatures on the vokalatnama as well as the application under section 8 of the said Act. Some other persons signed the said documents in the name of OPs no.2-4. ;