25.08.2026 Ct. No.655 Sl. No. 84 Subadip CO 4580 of 2025 Kishor Gupta (Mistri) Vs. Sankar Gupta (Mistri) & Ors. Ms. Chittapriya Ghosh, Ms. Priyanka Saha. …for the petitioner 1. Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff/petitioner is present. 2. This revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application filed by the proposed defendants/opposite parties under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking their addition as party defendants in the pending suit was allowed. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2025, has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the propriety and legality of the order by which the proposed defendants were directed to be added as parties to the suit. 4. However, at the time of hearing of the present revisional application, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the circumstances 2 giving rise to the present revisional application have undergone a material change. It is submitted that the suit, being Title Suit No. 17 of 2014, pending before the learned Trial Court, has since been decreed in preliminary form and a preliminary decree has already been passed. 5. A photocopy of the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Suri, Birbhum, recording the passing of the preliminary decree, has been handed over in Court and is taken on record for the purpose of consideration of the present proceeding. 6. In view of the subsequent development, particularly the passing of the preliminary decree in the suit, learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly submits that no effective relief can now be obtained in the present revisional application against the order dated 19.07.2025 by which the proposed defendants were permitted to be added as parties. The subsequent event has, therefore, rendered the challenge to the said order academic and has taken away the subsisting cause for adjudication in the present proceeding. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the learned Trial Court has already proceeded to pass a preliminary decree in Title Suit No. 17 of 2014, the challenge to the earlier order dated 19.07.2025, in the manner sought to be canvassed in the present revisional application, no longer survives 3 for effective adjudication. Any decision on the legality or otherwise of the impugned order, at this stage, would not result in any effective relief to the petitioner and would serve no useful purpose. 8. Accordingly, taking into consideration the subsequent development and the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, this Court finds that the present revisional application has become in fructuous. 9. Accordingly, the instant revisional application be and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)