Satyajit Banerjee & Others vs Hira Laxmi Mehta & Others

When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the appellants seeks adjournment.

Learned counsel for the interveners, Mr. Atanu Banerjee has submitted that he has filed an application vide I.A. No.4485/2020 on behalf of Sukhani Mahato @ Mahatain, wife of Late Gangadhar Mahato and Rohit Mahato, son of Doman Mahato, whose right, title and interest are being affected, as such, under Order XLI Rule 20 C.P.C., they are necessary party to the original suit as the present appeal is in continuation of the original suit, as such, they may be added as a party respondents.

Learned counsel for the interveners has relied upon Paragraph-9 of his interlocutory application, which is being taken note of:-

"9. That all that piece and parcel of Raiyati land situated in Mouza, Dhanbad, Police Station Bank More, District Dhanbad, Mouza No.51, Khata No.91 having its various plots originally recorded in the name of Mohit Mahato, Bhikhu Mahato and Nunia Mahatain in the Cadastral Survey record of right."

Learned counsel for the interveners has further submitted that in Execution Case No.5/2006, these interveners, Sukhani Mahato @ Mahatain and Rohit Mahto have filed one Civil Misc. Case No.4/2017 before the executing court, which has been admitted for adjudication, as such, the court below has also considered their case and this Court may allow the interveners to contest this case.

This Court has considered the submission made by learned counsel for the interveners in I.A. No.4485/2020. It appears from the judgment passed by both the courts below where a concurrent finding of facts have been given and the name of these interveners or their predecessor are not even whispered, the defendants, who are appellants before this Court, have taken a plea that they have entered into an agreement with one Bhim Mahto and said Bhim Mahto has also not filed any application before the court below and these interveners have no relation with said Bhim Mahto nor pleaded the same.

The trial court has given a finding that the plaintiffs are the rightful purchaser of the land and certain documents have been brought on record and have been exhibited, which are as follows:-

Exhibit-1 : Dhanbad Municipality receipt with respect of holding no.109 standing in the name of Manilal B. Mehta.

Exhibit-2 : Original sale deed no. 4842 dated 31.03.1965 executed by Kuar Singh in favour of Manilal B. Mehta.

Exhibit-2/A : Original sale deed dated 31.03.1965 executed by Sri Krishna Singh in favour of Manilal B. Mehta. Exhibit-2/B : Original sale deed dated 31.3.1965 deed no.4845 executed by Jag Mohan Singh in favour of Manilal B. Mehta.

Exhibit-2/C : Original sale deed dated 31.03.1965 executed by Sri Sheojee Mishra in favour of Manilal B. Mehta deed no.4843.

Exhibit-2/D : Original sale deed dated 08.07.1965 deed no.

11499 executed by Bijli Singh in favour of Manilal B. Mehta Exhibit-3 : Malgujari rent receipt standing in the name of Manilal B. Mehta for the year 1980-81, 89-90 and 88-89.

Learned counsel for the interveners has failed to satisfy this Court as to why he has not filed such application during pendency of the trial in the trial court or before the learned lower appellate court and now how the interveners came to know about the present proceeding in Second Appeal. Only and for the purpose to delay the proceedings, such petition has been filed before this Court, which is not entertainable at this stage in the second appeal, where the courts below had given concurrent findings of fact. The party may agitate their plea for adjudication of their right, title and interest over the suit property, but no cause of action arises in the present second appeal to entertain such interlocutory application.

The defendants have not adduced any evidence that the land belong to any of the interveners rather their specific case is that they entered into an agreement with Bhim Mahto, though no document has been brought on record except exhibit-A, which is a map without any authentication and even from the document of the defendants/appellants, the right of the interveners are not created in the present second appeal where there is a concurrent finding of two courts vide judgment dated 08.02.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.38/2006 and judgment dated 17.01.2006 passed in Title Suit No.108/1986. Apart from this, right of the interveners are not being affected in view of the provisions under Order I Rule 8 (6) C.P.C., which states that the judgment and decree in that suit shall be binding upon the parties to the suit, which reads as follows:-

"A decree passed in the suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be."

This court is not inclined to allow the intervention application as learned counsel for the interveners has submitted that in Execution Case No.05/2006, one Civil Misc. Case No.04/2017 has been filed by these interveners, as such, the trial court shall look into all such matters, but admittedly the interveners have no right.

Accordingly, this court is not inclined to allow the intervention application i.e. I.A. No. 4485/2020, which is hereby rejected.

On the request of learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. J. Mazumdar, let the case be listed in the next week i.e. on 01.10.2020.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on any ground as this case has been listed thrice on mentioning of learned counsel for the appellants.