AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revisional application arises from an order no. 69 dated June 23, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Mekhliganj, District - Cooch Behar in Title Suit No. 03 of 2009, by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner for hearing the application for addition of party together with the application for rejection of the said application due to non-compliance was rejected.
The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the original defendants/opposite parties from entering into the suit land. The plaintiffs allegedly claimed to be the owner of the suit property and further asserted their possession therein. The plaintiffs have alleged that the original defendants are trying to disturb their possession by uprooting all the pillars fixed by them as demarcation line sufficiently identifying the suit property.
The petitioner filed an application for addition of party duly affirmed by the deponent claiming himself to be the President of the said society.
The Trial Court discontinued the further progress of the said application, as the plaintiffs/opposite parties have raised a plea that the deponent must produce the relevant documents authorizing him to initiate a proceeding or to affirm an affidavit for and on behalf of the society and the register of the members of the said society. Eventually the said application was allowed.
According to the petitioner, it filed the members'' list and the resolution by which the deponent was appointed as President of the said society.
It is thus manifest that the petitioner had not filed the resolution authorizing the deponent to sign and verify the affidavit for and on behalf of the society as well as the present application for addition of party.
The plaintiffs took a plea that the resolution appointing the deponent as President of the society was of the year 2008 and in view of the relevant regulations, statue and bylaws the tenure of the President is one year and, therefore, it cannot be taken that the deponent is still the President of the said society.
The plaintiffs thereafter took out an application for dismissal of the said application for noncompliance of the earlier order and the same is still pending. The petitioner took out an application, so that the application for addition of party and the application for non-compliance of the earlier directions passed by the Court should be taken up together, as according to the petitioner, the documents disclosed before the Court sufficiently took care of the requirement of law and the directions passed by the Court.
By the impugned order the Court proceeded to decide the application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties alleging non-compliance of the earlier directions and kept the application for addition of party in suspended animation.
If both the parties are at variance so far as the compliance of the earlier directions is concerned and if the statute permits the initiation of the proceeding in a particular manner, it is the duty of the Court to decide the same simultaneously with the application for addition of party. Taking an application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for non-compliance of the earlier direction and then proceeding to the application for addition of party, if the decision warrants so would unnecessarily drag the proceeding and delay the disposal therefor.
This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order with a specific direction upon the Trial Court to decide both the applications, namely the application for addition of party as well as the application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for dismissal of the said application for non-compliance of the earlier order, simultaneously and efforts shall be shown to dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of the communication of this order in accordance with law.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to have any impact on the merit of the aforesaid applications and the Trial Court shall decide the same independently in accordance with law.
The revisional application is thus disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.