Sl. 3 13.07.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2196 of 2026 Rungta Mines Limited -versus- Mrs. Manju Puri & Ors. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saket Chowdhury Mr. Zeeshan Haque Ms. Ananya Chatterjee ..for the petitioner Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury Mr. M.P. Das Ms. Urrvi Chwla Mr. Aditya Mukherjee ..for the opposite party no.1 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the first defendant and is directed against an order dated May 5, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit 59 of 2013 (R. 2158/2016). By the order impugned the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein stood rejected. Probate to the last will and testament alleged to have been executed by one Surjan Singh Randhawa was granted by this Court on 4th June, 1982. The petitioner claims to have purchased the suit property from the ultimate beneficiary of the will dated 15th June, 1961 by a deed of conveyance dated 28th June, 2010. Thereafter an 2 application for revocation of the grant of probate was filed being G.A. No. 2411 of 2011 which stood dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court sometimes in the year 2015. Being aggrieved, the applicants in the revocation proceedings preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The said appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench sometimes in the year 2017. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the applicants in the revocation case approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a judgement and order dated November 14, 2019 was pleased to allow the revocation application thereby rejecting the grant of probate to the last will and testament of Surjan Singh Randhawa. After the judgement and order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaint was amended. Thereafter the learned trial judge, by the order impugned, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the suit property from the ultimate beneficiaries after the probate was granted. He submits that long after such purchase, the grant of probate stood revoked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sometimes in the year 2019. He submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He submits that the suit could not have been instituted at a point of time when the 3 application for revocation of the grant was pending. He submits that the instant suit is not maintainable in the eye of law and for such reason the learned trial judge ought to have rejected the plaint. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1 submits that after the grant of probate was revoked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the probate proceeding being P.L.A. 90 of 1982 stood dismissed. He submits that after dismissal of the probate proceedings the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest in respect of the property in question. In reply Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the probate proceeding stood dismissed as the propounder did not take any steps in the probate proceedings. He submits that in the meantime the propounder passed away and the carriage of proceedings insofar as the probate proceedings is concerned did not lay with the present petitioner. After going through the plaint as well as the amended plaint, this Court finds that the plaint discloses a cause of action. The learned trial judge took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby revoking the grant of probate and the subsequent dismissal of the probate proceedings in the year 2022 and rightly observed that whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim title and whether the transfer in favour of the defendant no.1 is 4 valid are matters which require adjudication upon evidence. On a query of the Court Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that the written statement has already been filed but the issues are yet to be framed. Taking note of the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2013 this Court is of the view that the same should be disposed of expeditiously. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit has to be framed along with other issues that may be necessary for the purpose of an effective adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. After the issues are framed and the evidences are led by the respective parties, the learned trial judge shall take up the issue of maintainability of the suit as the first issue and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. At this stage Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that several observations have been made by the learned trial judge in the order impugned which may have an adverse impact at the time of final adjudication of the suit. It is made clear that the observations made in the impugned order were all for the purpose of deciding the 5 application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial judge shall decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order as well as the observations made hereinbefore. The learned trial judge is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties keeping in mind that the suit is pending from the year 2013. With the above observations, C.O. 2196 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)