AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioners filed an petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading them as party defendants in the suit in question, which was rejected by the Court below.
When the case was taken up on 16th December, 2005, the following order was passed:-
Heard in part. Plaintiff-1st respondent is granted time to obtain instructions and state whether the issue relating to right and title over the land in question, is required to be determined in the suit for the purposes of granting relief. If one or other issue relating to right and title over the land, in question, requires to be determined then the plaintiff-1st respondent will state as to why the intervenor. who also claimed right title over the land, in question, be not made a party-defendant in the suit.
Place this case for further hearing under the heading TOR ORDERS'' on 5th January, 2006.
Until further orders, the order dated 18th June, 2005 passed by the learned Sub-Judge No. III. Deoghar in Title (Declaratory) Suit No. 26 of 2004 shall remain stayed.
Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff--1st respondent and defendants-respondents 2nd set submitted that on affidavit has been filed wherein they have taken specific plea that they will not press for determination of issues relating to right or title over the suit property, as only prayer has been made for declaration of certain documents as void.
In the circumstances, as in absence of such issue the Court below cannot determine issues relating to right or title over the suit properly in the present suit at the instance of the plaintiff 1st respondent, or the defendant 2nd set, and as such no order can be passed detrimental to the interest of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order.
Both the petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid observations.
It will be open to the petitioners to bring this order to the notice of the Court Below.