SARMISTHA GUHA Vs. GOURI GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates of both the sides. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order No. 83 dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned District Judge at Jalpaiguri in O.C. Suit No. 2 of 2006 thereby allowing two applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC and the other under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC.

(2.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the opposite parties instituted a misc. case being. Misc. Case No. 291/05 for obtaining probate in respect of the Will left by his mother contending, inter alia, that he was the sole executor of the Will.

(3.) SO far as the substitution in respect of the deceased defendant is concerned, there is no dispute but the dispute is with regard to the application for amendment of the plaint and the application for substitution of the heirs of the deceased plaintiff under order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge allowed both the applications and fixed the next date for adducing evidence. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.