ABDUL ODUD Vs. ABDUS SUKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against Order No. 17 dated 8. 8. 2006 passed by Sri S. Sengupta, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Dist.- Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal No. 10/2002.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the petitioners' case is that plaintiff/opposite parties filed title Suit No. 155/2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division, 1st Court at Kandi, Dist.- Murshidabad together with an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. The learned Trial Court initially passed an order to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit properties, which was subsequently vacated by an order dated 27. 6. 2002 since the learned Trial Court did not find any prima facie case or balance of convenience or inconvenience and also for want of identity of the suit property. Plaintiff/opposite parties thereafter filed an application for the amendment of the plaint though no separate application for amendment of the injunction application was filed, but filed an appeal against the order of the learned Trial Court dated 27. 6. 2002 being Misc. Appeal No. 10/2002 wherein learned Judge passed an order on 07. 01. 2004 granting injunction restraining the present petitioners/defendants from making any disturbance over the right of passage of the plaintiffs/opposite parties over the schedule properties. The said order was challenged but present petitioners filed civil application before this Court being C. O. No. 1715 of 2004 and subsequently, the said revisional application was disposed of by this Court on 5. 8. 2004 by setting aside the order of the 1st Appellate Court dated 7. 1. 2004 with a direction to re-heard the Miscellaneous Appeal after givng an opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to file written objection against the amended version of the plaint. Subsequently, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad heard the said Misc. Appeal being no. 10 of 2002 and passed the impugned order on 8. 8. 2006 allegedly without complying with the specific direction of this Court, without discussing the prima facie case. It is alleged that the learned Lower appellate Court head the amendment application which was to be heard by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 8. 8. 2006 in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2002 of learned Civil Judge (Senior division), Kandi, Murshidabad the present revisional application has been preferred.