RUPALI GHOSH Vs. SUSHANTA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner claims herself to be one of the legal heirs of Manoranjan Ghosh who was one of the co-sharers of the suit land that is T.S. No.08/2019 instituted by the plaintiff-Shri Sushanta Ghosh/respondent herein. She has sought to be impleaded as defendant therein by way of an application under Order ' 1 Rule ' 10(2) of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiff therein has sought for a declaration as sole title holder of the suit land by virtue of a sale deed executed on 5/2/1996 by other legal heirs of Manoranjan Ghosh. Apart from the petitioner, her sister, Smt. Apan Ghosh had also not executed the sale deed to transfer their share of land to the plaintiff. That application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No.1, Khowai Tripura vide order dtd. 20/11/2024 against which the present revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) Apart from the above averments, petitioner has also contended that she has filed T.S. No.17/2021 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Khowai Tripura for cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 5/2/1996 bearing No.1-218. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner for impleadment has been rejected on erroneous grounds as in case a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein the whole purpose of T.S. No.17/2021 instituted by the present petitioner for cancellation of the sale deed would be frustrated. Petitioner's sister, Smt. Apan Ghosh however, has not filed any application for impleadment in T.S. No.08/2019.

(3.) On being specifically asked, Mr. Bibek Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances the petitioner should seek transfer of either of the two suits to one Court for being tried analogously but no such application has yet been made. He, however, submits that this Court may allow liberty, to make such an application before the District Judge, Khowai for transfer of either T.S. No.17/2021 to the same Court for being tried analogously in order to avoid conflict of decisions when the sale deed dtd. 5/2/1996 is one and same on which the respondent No.1-plaintiff is claiming ownership and the present petitioner is seeking cancellation thereof.