Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 43 (CAL)

Ashok Dutta v. Archana Jash

2013-01-29

ASIM KUMAR MONDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Asim Kumar Mondal, J. 1. The instant revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 25 dated 2nd June, 2011, passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kalna in Title Suit No. 71 of 2010. The case of the petitioner is that there is an old and ancient Kalimandir lying and situated on 7 Sataks of land in Dag No. 434, Mouza-Joyrampur, P.S.-Monteswar, Dist-Burdwan. The said Kalimandir is a Debuttar property, well maintained by the Sebaits of the Deity. The Sebaits perform regular seva puja of the Deity. The Plot No. 434 is a Debuttar property and absolutely belong to Deity Shri Shri Kali Mata Thakurani. Nobody has got right, title and interest over the said property, as pathway of the defendants. The defendant No. 1, with a mala fide intention, had brought an M.P. case against the Sebaits of Deity in the Court of the Executive Magistrate at Kalna claiming that she has got right to enjoy and use Kachha road on the back portion of the old temple of Kali Mata and she and her ancestors use said Kachha road for about 35 years as pathway. 2. The Sebaits have filed a suit for declaration before the Ld. Court below against the defendants and also appear in the proceedings pending before the Executive Magistrate denying any right, title and interest of the defendants in the Dag No. 434. The defendant appeared in the suit filed below and submitted their written statement. The petitioner/applicants filed one petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. before the Ld. Court below praying for addition of parties on the ground that they are also Sebaits and perform seva puja daily and keep the old and ancient temple in good condition. So, their names may be included as plaintiff after the names of the plaintiffs in suit. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and raised objection. 3. Ld. Court below, considering the facts and submissions of parties, has been pleased to reject the petition under Order 1 Rule 10. The observation of Ld. Court below is that the suit in question has been filed by the Deity Shri Shri Kali Mata Thakurani being represented by six Sebaits named in the cause title plaint. 3. Ld. Court below, considering the facts and submissions of parties, has been pleased to reject the petition under Order 1 Rule 10. The observation of Ld. Court below is that the suit in question has been filed by the Deity Shri Shri Kali Mata Thakurani being represented by six Sebaits named in the cause title plaint. The present petitioners intending to get themselves included as Sebaits in the instant suit having Serial No. 6 of the plaint to represent the plaintiff Deity. 4. It is observed that the suit has not been filed under the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. The plaintiff Deity is adequately represented by six Sebaits. There is no allegation in the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. that the six representing Sebaits of the plaintiff Deity are not conducting the suit properly or acting contrary to the interest of the plaintiff Deity. So, the Ld. Court below, in such circumstances, came to the conclusion that the Deity is properly represented by the six Sebaits, and it is not necessary, in such circumstances, for effective and complete adjudication of the suit to include the petitioner in the said suit as plaintiff. 5. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 45 CWN at page 709 and 60 CWN at page 197. 6. On careful perusal of the citations referred above and relied upon by the petitioner in the present revisional application, having regards to the said observation of Coordinate Bench of this Court, I find that the facts and circumstances of the cases of the said two citations are not identical with the present case. In fact, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as the same will not prejudice the present petitioner or the plaintiffs named in the plaint representing plaintiff Deity. There is no conflict of interest between the persons representing the plaintiff Deity and the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. It further appears on perusal of the copy of the plaint filed before the Ld. Court below that the temple of Deity is an old and ancient one and the representing plaintiffs are claiming themselves as Sebaits since long though nothing transpired that there is no deed of trust appointing the said persons claiming as Sebaits. Court below that the temple of Deity is an old and ancient one and the representing plaintiffs are claiming themselves as Sebaits since long though nothing transpired that there is no deed of trust appointing the said persons claiming as Sebaits. However, the interest of the present petitioner in revision is not a conflicting one with the interest of the persons representing plaintiff Deity. 7. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the impugned order being No. 25 dated 2nd June, 2011 pass in Title Suit No. 71 of 2010 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kalna requires no interference. 8. In the result the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India stands dismissed. Stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. Thus, the revisional application is disposed of. Disposed off