TITAN ENGINEERING CO LTD Vs. PRADIP KUMAR SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had already heard the learned Advocates for the contending parties on the application filed by the applicants, Smt. Ira Basu and two others, for being added as proforma opposite parties in the instant revisional application on my taking up the matter for dictating the orders on the said application and perusing the records of the instant revisional application. I found that the instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 22.9.94 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No.70 of 1994 before him. While seeking to appreciate the scope of the instant revisional application for disposing of the applicants' aforesaid application I had scrutinised the record for finding out the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order. But on scrutiny of the record it appeared to me that the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order had not been annexed to the instant revisional application. No leave was sought for from the court for filing the same nor, had any leave been granted by the court therefor. The pages 22 & 23 of the revisional application would further indicate that the petitioners had not obtained the certified copy of the impugned order either at the time of filing of the revisional application. A certified copy of the application appears to be on the record. There is nothing on the record to indicate when and how the same was filed. A question therefore arose whether the instant revisional application could at all be entertained when the same was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order nor, any leave was sought for filing the same, neither any leave being granted for by the court for the said purpose.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioners as also the plaintiffs-opposite parties had submitted that since the instant revisional application had already been admitted and since the certified copy of the impugned order is presently on record, the instant revisional application may not be rejected on the aforesaid technical ground, to the inconvenience of the parties. In view of the submissions so made and in analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983, Supreme Court 540 I do not feel inclined to reject the revisional application on the aforesaid technical ground. The revisional application having once been admitted I would, per contra, feel inclined to dispose of the same on merits. Before doing so, let me propose to dispose of the relevant application filed by the applicants for adding them as proforma opposite parties herein for the reasons stated therein.

(3.) The applicants herein, Smt. Ira Basu, Sri Abhijit Basu and Sri Surajit Basu (herein after referred to as applicants), have prayed the court for adding them as proforma opposite parties in the instant Revisional Application for the reasons stated therein, supported by the opposite parties/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, but strongly opposed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as defendants).