Gauhati High Court
3: Jamuna Ray vs Raju Sarkar And Anr on 17 December, 2021
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010235732016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/16/2016
GIRISH DAS BISWAS
S/O. LT. GAYA NATH DAS, R/O. DHUBRI TOWN, WARD NO. 16, P.O. and P.S.
DHUBRI, ASSAM.
1.1: MONORAMA DAS
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O LATE GIRISH DAS BISWAS .
1.2: RAJU DAS
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE GIRISH DAS BISWAS
1.3: JAMUNA RAY
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O LATE GIRISH DAS BISWAS
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF DHUBRI TOWN
WARD NO 16
PO AND PS DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN 78332
VERSUS
RAJU SARKAR and ANR.
S/O. BHABENDRA SARKAR, SECRETARY, RAM KRISHNA MISSION ROAD,
PISCICULTURAL SAMITY, P.O. BIKYAPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-
783324.
2:SRI DWIJENDRA NATH PAUL
S/O. DEGENDRA MOHAN PAUL
R/O. WARD NO.16
P.O. BIDYAPRA
DIST. DHUBRI
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
PIN-783324
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.F AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.G BHARADWAJR-2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 17.12.2021 Heard Ms. F. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.02.2016 passed by Munsiff No.1 Dhubri in Title Suit No. 249/2002 whereby the application of the respondent no. 2 herein for transposition as a plaintiff was permitted. The brief facts of the case is that one Deben Biswas (since deceased) had instituted the suit as the Secretary of Ram Krishna Mission Road Pisciculture Samity wherein inter-alia a declaration was sought that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 320/1998 was fraudulently obtained by the defendant on 07.12.1999 and for other reliefs. While instituting the said suit an application was filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission in view of the fact that there were many fishermen of the Schedule Caste community in the area of Mission Road & Jhagrapar and the plaintiff intended to commence the suit as the suit for all the persons of fishermen of the Schedule Caste community in the area of Mission Road & Jhagrapar for vindication of their common rights and grievances of fishing in railway pond.
Page No.# 3/4 It has been informed to this Court that the said permission was duly granted and there was a compliance in terms with provisions of Order I Rule 8.
The respondent no. 2 herein as defendant no. 1 (6) in the said suit also filed his written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff Shri Deben Biswas had expired and thereupon an application was filed by the defendant no. 1 (6) for transposition as the plaintiff no.2 which was registered as petition no. 3920 dated 28.09.2015. It was specific case of the respondent no. 2./defendant no. 1 (6) that he is one of the Executive Members of the plaintiff's Sumity and he has also supported the case of the plaintiff by adducing evidence for cancellation of the purported fraudulent decree as obtained by the defendant no.1 in Title Suit no. 320/1998.
The petitioner herein who is defendant no. 1 in the suit have objected to the said petition for transposition on the ground that when the plaintiff has not withdrawn or abandoned the suit the petition for transposition as plaintiffs is contrary to law. It was also alleged in the said written objection that the respondent no. 2 herein being a non-scheduled caste community he cannot be the Executive Member of the plaintiff's Samity. On the basis of the application and the objection the Court below vide an order dated 20.01.2016 permitted the transposition, thereby the respondent no. 2 was permitted to be added as a plaintiff no. 2 in exercise of powers under Order I Rule (10) (1) of the Code of Civil of Procedure. In doing so, the Court below observed that both the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no.1 (6) had a common interest and as it was Page No.# 4/4 necessary for the determination in the real matter in dispute the defendant 1 (6) to be added as the plaintiff no. 2 in the suit and consequential fixed the suit for further PWs on 06.02.2016. It is against the said order that defendant no.1 who is the petitioner herein have assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. Taking into consideration that this is the suit wherein leave was sought for under Order I Rule 8 and the said leave was duly granted and the defendant no. 1 (6) i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein, have a common interest with the plaintiff and in that regard have also supported the case of the plaintiff in the suit, it would be in the interest of justice and as such, the transposition made of the defendant no. 1 (6) as plaintiff no. 2 in exercise of the powers under Order I Rule 10 (1) by the Trial Court do not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the order dated 01.04.2016 stands vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the Court on 18.01.2022.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant