D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Koderma dated 30th November, 2010 in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2010 whereby, an application preferred by the present Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected and therefore, the intervenor has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Munsif, Koderma dated 30th November, 2010 in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2010 mainly for the reason that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2010. It further appears from the facts of the case that the suit property is a Trust property namely S.K. Sahana Trust (Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust). Petitioner wants to bring before the learned trial court several details about the illegal sale deed previously executed by the trustees of the aforesaid Trust in favour of private persons without permission of the Charity Commissioner. Moreover, previously also, several title suits were preferred and were dismissed for default either deliberately or because of the negligence of those Plaintiffs. They are Title Suit No. 43 of 1983, another is Title Suit No. 17 of 1991 and the third is Title Suit No. 118 of 2007. All these facts will necessarily be brought before the notice of the trial court for arriving at a correct decision about the disputes between the parties.
(3.) MOREOVER , looking to the facts of the case, the Petitioner is a trustee of the suit property and it appears that he wants to bring correct fact before the trial court about the illegal sale deed entered into by the previous trustees in favour of the Plaintiffs i.e. present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or predecessor in title. These facts are not properly appreciated by the trial court, which is an error apparent on the face of record.;