SANDIP KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. DILIP KUMAR SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order being No. 46 dated 01.08.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in T.S. 47 of 1999.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above revision are that the present petitioner, O.P. No.1 and their younger brother Pradip Kumar Samanta purchased 3 cottahs of bastu land within municipal holding No.46/1, Kamini School Lane, Salkia, Dist. Howrah by a deed dated 12.08.1972 and constructed a two-storeyed building thereon. Due to inconvenience in using the said property jointly, the said O.P./defendant instituted a suit being T.S. 160 of 1995 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah for partition which was disposed of on compromise, and the 'Kha' schedule property was allotted to the O.P./defendant, 'Ga' schedule to the petitioner and 'Gha' to Pradip. The said 'Kha' schedule is to the contiguous south-west of the allotted property of the petitioner. As per provision in the compromise petition, if any of the parties for partition desires to sell his allotted portion, he is to send notice to other parties who within one month from the date of receipt of notice would purchase the property according to the then reasonable price. On receipt of a notice from the Advocate of the present O.P. regarding his intention to sell his allotted portion expressing that he has already got an offer of Rs.4,50,000/-, the petitioner replied through his Advocate expressing his willingness to purchase the same with a request for appointment of a valuer for assessing the reasonable valuation. Lest the privacy of the petitioner be not disturbed, he instituted a suit T.S. 47 of 1999 for declaration, specific performance of contract and injunction. During pendency of the suit, the present O.P. illegally transferred his interest in the disputed property to O.P. No.2 Sukumar Chandra Roy by a deed dated 23.04.1999. On receipt of such information the petitioner filed an application for adding the said transferee as a defendant in the suit and another application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P. Code praying for amendment of the plaint by inserting a prayer for decree for pre-emption of the disputed property which was refused by the impugned order.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.