MD. ABDULLAH SK Vs. JYOSTNA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts as noted in the instant revision application is that one Shri Lutfur Rahman Khandakar filed a suit before the Assistant Deputy Commissioner at Tura which was registered as Title Suit No. 4 of 1997 for declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering in the management of the Dargah Sharif. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and was substituted by Smti Jyostna Bewa (Respondent No. 1 herein). The case thereafter on the point of jurisdiction travelled up to the Supreme Court and finally was remanded to the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ampati and is presently pending trial. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 then claiming themselves to be the daughters of the deceased original plaintiff filed an application for their impleadment which was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 29.08.2017. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner (defendant No. 1) preferred an appeal before the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Ampati who vide judgment and order dated 06.12.2017 upheld the order of the Trial Court and further accepted the stand of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 as co-sharers of the suit property. As such, by the instant revision application the petitioner is before this Court challenging the above noted order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel submits that the suit was instituted as far back as 1997 and while the same was pending in the trial Court for framing of issues, the respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 filed an application before the trial Court for impleading themselves as additional plaintiffs in the suit. He submits that the said application was allowed by order dated 29.08.2017 and against the said order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Ampati, South West Garo Hills who by order dated 06.12.2017 upheld the order of the trial Court and however came to a finding that the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are the 'sharers ' and that the respondents ought to have been joined as plaintiffs to the suit.