PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. AJOY KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the original Plaintiffs against an order passed by the Munsif- I, Dhanbad, dated 20th May, 2007 in Title Suit No. 246 of 2005, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, whereby, the earlier order, passed by the very, same Court dated 17th January, 2007 (Annexure 3 to the memo of petition) has been recalled. Initially an application, preferred by the Petitioners (original Plaintiffs) to call upon the Defendants to give the name of the legal heirs of one Sri Gunindra Nath Choudhary, was allowed, but, later on, this very application is ordered to be reheard.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that once the application is allowed, another order cannot be passed i.e. the impugned order cannot be passed for further hearing of the said application vide the order at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition and, therefore, it is prayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners (original Plaintiffs) has pointed out in detail, what is the dispute between the parties in the Title Suit, which has been reflected in paragraph No. 5 of the memo of petition and submitted that the names of the legal heirs of Gunindra Nath Choudhary will be very much necessary, so that if the suit is allowed, there may not be any difficulty in execution of the decree. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.