NUPUR DEB Vs. SK NASIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant revisional application under article 227 of the Constitution, the legality and propriety of the order No. 23 dated 20.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 5th Court, Alipore, Sourth 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 10 of 2007, so far as it relates to the rejection of the application of the petitioner, who had prayed for expunging the names of the present opposite party nos. 2 and 3, has been challenged.

(2.) The father of the present petitioner being Subhomoy Dutta had filed a suit for declaration and injunction praying for relief in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint. The said Subhomoy Dutta contended that the suit property originally belonged to him which he transferred by way of deed of gift in favour of the present petitioner, his daughter, Nupur Deb and the latter inducted him as a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 800/- per month for running a Doctors Clinic therein. The defendant No.1, the present Opposite Party No.1, was a casual employee under him and in lieu of salary he was allowed to sell spectacles in a small portion described in schedule - B to the plaint. The present petitioner was made proforma defendant in the suit. The said Subhomoy Dutta having died during the pendency of the suit, upon application of the defendant/ opposite party No.1, his heirs being his wife, son and daughter were substituted as plaintiffs. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed two applications praying for expunging the names of wife and son of Subhomoy Dutta being plaintiff nos. 1 & 3 and also another application for expunging her name as proforma defendant. The first application was rejected by the learned Trial Court while the second application was allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order rejecting her first application, the petitioner has preferred this revisional application contending inter alia that during pendency of the suit the father of the petitioner had surrendered the tenancy which was on record; that the right, title and interest of the suit property was transferred in favour of the petitioner by way of deed of gift and the tenancy right created in favour of her father, original plaintiff was surrendered and the same was brought on record during life time of the said original plaintiff for which the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 had no right, title and interest and were not necessary parties and accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in law and liable to be set aside.