KALPANA MAJUMDER Vs. PACKARD EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is arising out of an order passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to add the petitioners as parties in a suit instituted by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 8. In order to decide the present revisional application and find out whether the learned Trial Judge exercised his discretion properly in refusing to add the petitioners in the suit instituted by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 against the rest of the opposite parties, the scope of the suits that are presently pending before the Trial Judge is required to be examined.

(2.) In or about April, 2005 the petitioners instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 50 of 2005 against the opposite parties praying for a declaration that the compromise decree obtained in Title Suit No. 90 of 2004 by the opposite parties is void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and the sale deed by defendants'/owners in favour of M/s. Packard Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ritman Commercial Pvt. Ltd. is fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff. In the said plaint, it is alleged by the said petitioners that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 with ulterior motive had purchased the suit property from the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in spite of having prior notice and knowledge about a registered agreement of sale executed by the said opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in favour of the plaintiffs on 5th November, 2002 inasmuch as the said conveyance in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was executed in violation of an order of injunction passed in an earlier proceeding, the said deed of sale in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(3.) Subsequent thereto, in or about November, 2007, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the suit against the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 for a declaration that the said opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 do not have any right, title or interest over and in respect of the suit property and a further declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in respect of the suit property by way of purchase from the defendants by a registered deed of conveyance dated 1st March, 2005.