MAMATA ALIAS MALA BHANDARI Vs. SANJIB BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order dated July 16, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, District ? South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.74 of 1994. By the said application, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated February 10, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge. The plaintiffs/opposite party nos.1 to 6 instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.74 of 1994 against the petitioner being the defendant no.2 along with other opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 being the defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 therein for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In that suit, the defendant is contesting by filing a written statement. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff came up with an application for addition of party. Another application was also filed by him for amendment of the plaint. Both the petitions were allowed by the learned Trial Judge by the order dated February 10, 2006. Subsequently, on July 16, 2007 the defendant no.2 filed an application for stay. That was rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(2.) NOW, the point for consideration is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned orders. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the impugned orders lays down two matters; one for addition of party and another for amendment of the plaint. The said suit has been filed against the Biren Roy Charitable Trust and others for the reliefs already stated. The last two beneficiaries already expired. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 was to be represented by somebody. The learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas appointed the official trustee as administrator pendente lite. Under the circumstances, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. was filed by the official trustee of West Bengal and it had been supported by an affidavit. Since there was none to represent the defendant no.1 after the death of the last two beneficiaries, I am of the view that under the circumstances the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. filed by the official trustee. So far as the matter of amendment of the plaint is concerned,

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the order dated July 16, 2007 which is nothing but a formal order does not call for any interference. In fact, it is not at all a revisable order. The defendant no.2 was absent on repeated calls and so his petition for stay was rejected at 3.45 p.m. There is no illegality in dismissing the said petition for stay when the defendant no.2 was found absent on repeated calls.