Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who challenges the order dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure-E), whereby the petitioner''s impleading application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. in the Title Suit No. 166/2008, was rejected by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Silchar. While the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) Mr. S.P. Choudhury is present, the counsel for the other respondent (defendant) are absent, although notice of the case was duly served on all parties.
2. The Title Suit No. 166/2008 was filed to claim right, title and interest over the suit land and also for injunction against the principal defendant. However claiming substantial interest in the suit property, the present petitioner filed an application (Annexure-C) for his impleadment in the suit. In his application, it was averred that the applicant had purchased the suit land from one Makaddas Ali (the father of the principal-defendant) and accordingly claiming bona fide interest in the suit, the prayer for impleadment was made. The applicant referred to paragraph-2 of the plaint, where the plaintiff herself acknowledged that Makaddas Ali, during his lifetime sold his share of ancestral land to the petitioner Baba Chand Singha. However the plaintiff in their objection (Annexure-D), contended that the land purchased by the petitioner is distinct and separate from the suit land and accordingly the prayer for impleadment was opposed.
3. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Silchar considered the objection and observed that while the plaintiff has admitted the sale of land by Makaddas Ali, the purchased land is not part of the suit property inherited by the defendant. Accordingly through the impugned order dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure-E), the learned Trial Judge dismissed the impleadment application filed by the present petitioner.
4. Assailing the legality of the impugned order, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is directly concerned with the suit property and therefore the Court should have added him as a party whose presence would enable the Court to effectually adjudicate the suit.
5. In fact, the principal defendant Saibul Islam Laskar (from whose father Makaddas Ali the petitioner purchased the suit land), has filed an independent Title Suit No. 40/2010 jointly with the petitioner Baba Chand Singha, to claim title over the very same land, which was the subject matter of the previous Title Suit No. 166/2008. The plaintiff of the earlier case, Musstt. Nazma Begum Laskar is arrayed as the principal-defendant in the 2nd Title Suit No. 40/2010, filed jointly by the petitioner against the principal defendant Saibul Islam Laskar.
6. Referring to the schedule of the property in both the cases, Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel submits that the claim in both suits is for the same property and therefore the counsel argues that the observation of the Court about the suit property being different, is a perverse finding, which could not have been made the basis for rejection of the impleadment application.
7. The records indicate that the property in question was originally owned by one Mafush Ali, who was succeeded by his three children Mosid Ali (son), Ali Raja (son) and Kamrun Nessa (daughter). The first successor Mosid Ali was succeeded by Makadas Ali. The principal defendant of the case Saibul Islam Laskar is the son of Makadas Ali. The petitioner purchased the land from Makadas Ali, the father of the principal-defendant Saibul Islam Laskar and this is admitted in the plaint itself.
8. The following Chart will explain the above narratives:
9. While the purchase of the land by the petitioner from the father of the principal defendant is admitted by the plaintiff herself, the learned Court disallowed the impleadment application by observing that the purchased land is different from the suit land. But this observation may be incorrect in as much as, the present petitioner has joined the principal defendant Saibul Islam Laskar in filing the Title Suit No. 40/2010, claiming title over the very same property, which is the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 166/2008. Therefore I feel that the petitioner''s impleadment application should not have been rejected, as his presence in the suit will help the Court to adjudicate the suit effectively and also settle the disputed question in the case.
10. In view of above, I find merit in this Revision Petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Consequently the impugned order dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure-E) is quashed and the learned Trial Judge is directed to allow the impleadment of the petitioner in the Title Suit No. 166/2008, to enable him to contest the suit in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. The learned counsel(s) undertake to inform their respective client to appear before the Trial Judge on 1.6.2015.
11. The Registry should communicate this order to the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar.
