ASWINI KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. ADITYA KUMAR SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against the Order No. 27 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court at Midnapore on 17.02.2011 in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2009 of his Court. The background of the matter is that the OP No. 1 had originally filed the Title Suit No. 137 of 2002 in the said Court against other Opposite Parties/defendants including the OPs. 2 and 3 who were the principal defendants therein. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff/OP No. 1 on 10.01.2008. Thereafter he filed the aforesaid Title execution case in the said Court and during the course of such execution proceedings, possession of the decretal property was ordered to be delivered in favour of the said OP/Decree-Holder. The present petitioner however appeared in the Court and filed his application U/O. XXI, R. 99 of the CP Code by alleging that he had already purchased the decretal property, and was actually in physical possession of the same when he was allegedly dispossessed therefrom. While his application U/O. XXI, R. 99 of the CP Code was registered as Mis. Judicial Case No. 3 of 2011, the Ld. Court below vide its impugned Order however refrained from passing a Final Order on his separate application filed U/O. I, R. 10 of the CP Code in which he had prayed for being added as a party in the Execution case.

(2.) The short question now involved in this matter is basically whether the petitioner who was not a party to the original Suit in which the decree was passed, should be added as party in the subsequent Execution case filed by the Decree-Holder to enforce the apparent relief granted to him in the suit, or not.

(3.) Admittedly the Sale Deed on which the petitioner relies upon to assert his own Title in respect of the decretal property was executed in his favour after passing of the decree on 10.01.2008. But it also appears that the property in question was sold to him by one Laxmi Kanta Bera who is stated to have purchased the same from the erstwhile owner Shrimati Minati Burman (OP No. 2) wife of Parameshwar Burman (OP No. 3) who were the original defendants in the Title Suit filed by the (OP No. 1) Sri Aditya Kumar Pal. Such registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner's alleged vendor Laxmi Kanta Bera was made on 07.02.2005 i.e., during pendency of the Title Suit No. 137 of 2002.