MAHIUDDIN TARAFDAR Vs. BUDDHADEV HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revisional application is taken up for hearing at the motion stage and the same is being opposed by the Caveator. The said revisional application is directed against an order by which the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-Rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the concerned Munsif.

(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order on the footing that he has subsisting interest in the suit property and according to him, as such, his client should be added as a party.

(3.) IT is salient to refer to the plaint of the connected suit from which it appears that the suit is for eviction off the defendants and the same is under Transfer of Property Act as the said land is situated in a Panchayat area admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The entire controversy in the pending suit is in respect of eviction of a tenant from the suit property by a landlord and accordingly it does not partake of the character of a suit for eviction. In the plaint of the suit itself, there has been a reference in paragraph 9 that it was transferred in favour of the instant petitioner illegally and the same has been attempted to be repelled to the salient paragraph of the written statement where the defendants have sec up the plea that the revisional petitioner is only employed to supervise the running of the shop in the suit property.