KASHINATH GHOSH Vs. RADHARANI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6.8.2008 as also the order dated 24.6.2005, passed by Harun Al Rashid, learned Additional District Judge, Nadia, 2nd Court, Krishnagar in O.S. No. 11 of 2002 seeking deletion of the name of subsequent transferee of the property involved in the suit in question.

(2.) Having gone through the materials on record and also upon consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned it could be detected that the learned Trial Judge while proceeding with the other suit no. 11 of 2000 was pleased to allow the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on contest and thereby added opposite party Binod Bala as citee no. 3(d). It could be further detected that subsequently learned trial Judge upon hearing the learned Lawyer appearing for the parties concerned was, however, pleased to reject the application filed on behalf of petitioner Kashinath Ghosh for debarring the added opposite party Binod Bala from contesting the suit in question.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the added opposite party Binod Bala referring to the contents of the impugned orders as well as some other important materials on record including the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, strongly urged that learned trial Judge while passing the impugned orders committed no mistake or illegality as because the subsequent transferee being interested in the property involved in the suit becomes a necessary party and as such he lawfully acquires right to fight out the probate case for protection of his property share. In support of his contention he has relied upon a ruling, (Smt. Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., 1958 AIR(SC) 394) and argued that as a purchaser pendente lite the person should be necessarily brought on records to allow him an opportunity to submit his say. Further referring to the materials on record learned lawyer appearing for the added opposite party submitted that considering the age and stage of the probate proceeding learned trial Judge correctly disposed of the petitions and passed the impugned orders quite lawfully and in a justifiable manner.