FALGUNI MAJUMDER Vs. MOKBUL HOSSAIN BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, following leave, by a third party-added defendant-appellant is from the judgment and order dated 6.8.92 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 405 of 1988 Dhaka/Civil Revision No. 242 of 1988 (Rangpur) refusing to rehear the case which was disposed of on 12.5.92 ex parte making the Rule absolute and setting aside thereby the judgment and order dated 13.4.88 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge Nowabgonj in Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 1988 reversing the order dated 13.12.86 passed by the learned Munsif, Nowabgonj in O.C. Suit No. 231 of 1986 rejecting an application filed by the present appellant under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for being substituted in place of shebayet -Defendants.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and others instituted O.C. Suit no. 612 of 1966 in the Court of Sadar Munsif Rajshahi, renumbered as O.C. Suit No. 507 of 1968 and subsequently again renumbered as O.C. Suit 231 of 1986 of the Court of Munsif, 3th Court, Nowabgonj, impleading the Dieties Sree Sree Durgamata Thakurani, Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani and Sree Sree Katrik Deb Thakur represented by the Shebayet Sree Bhobesh Chandra Das and several others as defendants for declaration that the decree passed in O.C.Suit No. 228 of 1960 (in respect of the suit property) is illegal, void fraudulent and not binding upon them. On the death of the Shebayet his heirs viz Sree Chittaranjan Das, Sree Ranjan Das and Sree Horendra Nath Das were substituted as defendants. On 27.9.86 the appellant, an advocate of Nowabgonj Bar, as the Secretary of Protab Chandra Das Debattar Trust committee filed an application under order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as defendant in the suit stating, inter alia, that Late Protab Chandra Das, a Businessman of Nawabgonj in the year 1332 B.S. dedicated the suit properties to his family Deities, mentioned above, by registered Arpannama. Last Shebayet Chitta Ranjan Das migrated to India in 1981 without making any arrangement to perform Sheba Puja and look after the debattar property, that the local Hindu community in a meeting held on 31.12.81 formed a broad-based trust committee and elected the appellant as its Secretary, that since the said property has devolved upon the trust committee he as the Secretary of the committee for the ends of justice should be made legal representative of the Deities to defend the suit.

(3.) The trial court rejected the said application holding, inter alia, that the Arpannama does not contain the suit plots. On an appeal, preferred by the appellant, the appellate court set aside the order of trial court and allowed substitution of the appellant in the suit under order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C holding, inter alia, that an interest being devolved upon the appellant he is entitled to contest the suit as a defendant under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C.