HARIDAR SARKAR (DEAD) AND ORS. Vs. JITENDRANATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are directed against the orders dated August 25, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in Civil Revision No. 25(S)of 2004 and orders dated June 18, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Judicial Case No. 17 of1994 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 16 of 1994.

(2.) Since identical questions are involved in the two matters, these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No. 2462 of 2005 first.

(3.) The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that an application under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre -emption was filed by the Petitioner against the opposite party on the ground of vicinity. The opposite party entered appearance and he is contesting the said application by filing a written objection. The Petitioner filed an objection against amendment of the objection. Thereafter, on taking evidence on behalf of both the sides, the application for pre -emption was allowed and the learned Trial Judge has directed that the right, title and interest of the opposite party in the land in case shall vest in the Petitioner by an order dated April 25, 2000. Thereafter, the opposite party preferred the misc. appeal. It was contested by the Petitioner. By an judgment dated July 17, 2001, the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Siliguri set aside the order dated April 25, 2000 and sent back the misc. case on remand for fresh trial. The learned Additional District Judge gave liberty to the Petitioner to amend their application and to adduce further evidence in terms of the observations made in the body of the judgment. At that time, the Petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for introduction of certain facts which according to him are necessary for the ends of justice. That application for amendment of the plaint was allowed in part on contest with costs. Being aggrieved by that order, the original Petitioner (now deceased), has come up with this application.