TAPAN TANAY HALDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications heard analogously have been preferred by the respective defendants-petitioners viz., Tapan Tanay Halder and Mukunda Chandra Halder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 24-5-1994 passed by the learned District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal Nos. 77, 78 and 98 of 1994 (heard analogously) reversing the order dated 11-2-94 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 169 of 1987 allowing an application under Order XL, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner Mukunda Chandra Halder of C.O.No. 2652 of 1994.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that the original number of the Title Suit No. 169 of 1987 was Title Suit No. 44 of 1971 filed in the 10th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore which was successively transferred to different Courts and ultimately re-numbered as Title Suit No. 169 of 1987 of the 7th Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore. The aforesaid suit was filed on 17-9-71 by one Sri Hara Lal Halder since deceased against the present two petitioners and others for dissolution of partnership and for accounts etc., in respect of the assets of the partnership business as detailed in the plaint-schedule. It was the plaint case that the partnership was created by a registered Deed executed by the parties on 14-2-68. It may also be noted that the aforesaid suit abated on the death of the original plaintiff whose heirs were not substituted according to law. The trial Court by order No. 211, dated 25-4-75 ordered the suit to abate.

(3.) But the trouble started since the abatement of the suit due to infight among the defendants over a property of the deceased-plaintiff being premises No. 91, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P. S. Budge Budge. The records of the said dead suit have become a strange labyrinth of indiscriminate papers, application and orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Courts at different points of time. However, it would be necessary to note the undisputed or admitted facts on record for the purpose of appreciating the scope of the present two revisional applications and to pass appropriate orders on the same.