Tripura High Court
Shri Nani Goptal Datta vs Smt. Anita Rani Datta(Choudhury) ... on 7 February, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRP No.99 of 2022
Shri Nani Goptal Datta
.....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Smt. Anita Rani Datta(Choudhury) and another
.....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dipak Deb, Advocate,
Mr. S. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
ORDER
07.02.2023
Heard Mr. Dipak Deb, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment and
order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division,
Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S(P) 43 of 2018
[3] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner and respondents are brother and sister. The
plaintiff-respondents have filed the suit T.S(P) No.43 of 2018 for
partition of land measuring 0.40 acres left by their father Narendra
Chandra Datta. The defendant-petitioner had no knowledge about the
institution of the suit and through his counsel he came to know that the
suit was at the stage of preparation of the final decree. The defendant-
petitioner filed application under u/o IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside
the ex parte judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.02.2019 for
restoration of the suit in allowing the defendant-petitioner to defend the
case out of which the case was registered and the same was disposed of
on 28.01.2021. Subsequently, the defendant-petitioner submitted written
statement inter alia alleging that alongside the land of the father, the
mother Nihar Kana Datta(Choudhury) also left 1.77 acres of land
classified as Nal, under Khatian No.1042. The defendant-petitioner with
the put-up petition on 23.11.2022 filed an application u/o 1, Rule 10(2) of
CPC for adding Sri Arun Kr. Choudhury as plaintiff No.3 as 0.99 acres
out of the land measuring 1.77 acres of the mother was recorded in his
name. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the said
application. Hence, this petition.
[4] Mr. Dipak Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the judgment and order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the
learned Civil Judge suffers from gross irregularities as the learned Judge
committed an error in dismissing the application of the defendant
petitioner for adding Sri Arun Kr. Choudhury. He further submits that
after submission of the written statement he came to know regarding the
Khatian in the name of Sri Arun Kr. Chowdhury recording the land
measuring 0.99 acres out of the land measuring 1.77 acres of the mother
Nihar Kana Datta (Choudhury) and as such filed the application under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for adding him as necessary party to the suit.
No representation is made on behalf of the respondent.
[5] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge as the
learned Judge has passed the order after appreciating the evidence on
record. The learned Judge observed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for
partition of the properties was originally belonged to late Narendra
Chandra Dutta, the father of the plaintiffs and defendants. He further
observed that the plaintiffs were the dominus litis of the suit and could not
be forced to add any party to the suit more so as a plaintiff.
[6] Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending application(s),
if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Dipesh
