IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi C.O. 1303 of 2025 Ashoke Sardar @ Dewan Vs. Sohrab Ali Khan, since deceased, represented by Jahanara Begum & Ors. For the petitioner : Mrs. Shohini Chakrabarty, Mr. Debabrata Sardar For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Mukteswar Maity, Ms. Monika Sarkar Heard on : 28.09.2026 Judgment on : 28.09.2026 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.: 1. The instant revisional application has been filed assailing an order no. 80 dated 19th March, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No. 138 of 2012. 2. By the impugned order, the Learned First Appellate Court rejected an application filed on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Learned First Appellate Court erred in law in rejecting the application for addition of parties. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that by such application, the respondents/plaintiffs sought to bring on record the legal heirs of one of the parties to the proceeding who were not impleaded earlier. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the parties sought to be added as party to the title appeal are necessary parties being legal heirs of a party who died during the pendency of such proceeding. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the Learned First Appellate Court erroneously rejected the application of the plaintiff as well as the documents relied upon by them. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Learned First Appellate Court, by passing the impugned order wrongly held that any person who had interest in the disputes involved in the proceeding could have come forward by making appropriate application. She submits that the petitioner/plaintiff approached the Court with a lease. It was the option of the petitioner to bring all the interested parties on record for proper adjudication of the lease. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties/appellants submits that the persons sought to be added as a party in the title appeal never approached the Court for being impleaded in the proceeding. He submits that the Learned First Appellate Court rightly refused the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the addition of parties. 3 8. Petitioner/plaintiff filed title suit being Title Suit No. 277 of 2010 against the opposite parties and others. The said suit was decreed exparte in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the opposite party/defendant in such suit preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 138 of 2012. In such title appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of certain parties. Such application was rejected by the Learned First Appellate Court by an order passed on 24th January, 2020. Assailing such order, the petitioner/plaintiff moved before this Court in C.O. No. 515 of 2020. The said revisional application was dismissed by this Court by an order passed on 20th August, 2024. However, by such order, this Court granted liberty to the plaintiff/petitioner to file appropriate application afresh supported by necessary documents, if there be any. 9. In pursuance of such order passed in C.O. 515 of 2020, the petitioner filed another application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 138 of 2012. 10. In such application it was contended on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff that the mother of Joydeb Bhandari namely Renuka Bhandari died on 17th January, 2015 leaving behind five sons namely Raghunath, Basudeb, Sahadeb, Mohadeb & Joydeb and three daughters namely Sagorika, Nobonita @ Rolo & Sakti. The said Renuka Bhandari was a plaintiff in original Title Suit No. 277 of 2010. It was further contended in such application that Raghunath Bhadari son of Renuka Bhandari also died 4 leaving behind his wife Mina Bhandari and son Ghugu Bhandari. The other son of Renuka Bhandari namely Basudeb Bhandari also died leaving behind his wife Mala and two sons namely Papai and Babai. One of the daughters of Renuka Bhandari, the plaintiff namely Sagorika Bhandari (Katal) also died leaving behind her son Raja Kotal, Aro Katal and daughters namely Aparna Katal, Archana Katal and Srabanti Katal. A certificate to that effect was issued by Uluberia Municipality on 7th January, 2025 which was annexed with the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The aforesaid legal heirs of the deceased sons and daughters of the plaintiff Renuka Bhandari were sought to be impleaded in the title appeal. As many as twelve such legal heirs of the sons and daughters of original plaintiff were named in the application. 12. Such application was rejected by the Learned First Appellate Court by the impugned order. The Learned First Appellate Court, while considering the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff held as follows: “Having heard the submissions and perusing the materials on record, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 file the application to arraigned other legal heirs of Renuka Bhandari who have been left out by the appellant by showing the certificates issued from Municipal Authority and Gram Panchayat. In my view, those documents left doubt with regard to its authenticity unless it is proved by the authority concerned who issued. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the respondents that there are other legal heirs relying on the documents filed by the respondents. This Court is of the opinion that the appellants rest their case against the present parties claiming that there are no other person being the legal heirs of Renuka Bhandari were left out, if any such legal heirs or persons, interested, be there, may come suo moto. But no such person claiming left out legal heirs came before this Court. Respondent No. 1(c) being of the legal heirs of Renuka Bhandari remains silent and keeping himself mum though he is the best person being the siblings of other legal heirs, alleged to be left out. Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to accept the contention that the persons as mentioned in the petition are interest parties being 5 the legal heirs coming from Renuka Bhandari. As such, this petition is liable to be rejected.” 13. The Learned First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the appellants rested their case against the present parties claiming there are no other persons being the legal heirs of Renuka Bhandari left out. The impugned order also stated that if any such legal heirs or persons, interested, be there, they could have approached the Court suo moto for being impleaded in the proceeding. The impugned order also stated that the certificates issued by the Municipal Authorities and Gram Panchayat were doubtful as to authenticity unless it was proved by the authority concerned who issued it. 14. So far as the averments made in the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it clearly lays down that the persons sought to be impleaded by the petitioner/plaintiff were the legal heirs of the deceased sons and daughters of the original plaintiff in the title suit. Such fact has not been denied specifically or the impugned order does not give any reason or finding that the persons sought to be impleaded were not the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. The Learned First Appellate Court while passing the impugned order has declined to rely upon the documents annexed with the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. No reason has been assigned by the Learned First Appellate Court as to why it was the said documents were not relied upon. The documents were filed for the purpose of consideration of an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was 6 supported by an affidavit. There was no occasion to bring the authorities who had issued the certificate for the proof of the aforesaid documents. 15. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot been sustained and is hereby set aside. 16. The application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff on 19th September, 2024 stands allowed. Let the persons named in the schedule of such petition be added as the parties as legal heirs of the original plaintiff. 17. Upon such addition of the parties, the Learned First Appellate Court shall proceed with the pending appeal in due course of law as expeditiously as possible. 18. With such directions and observations the instant revisional application being C.O. No. 1303 of 2025 is disposed of. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) B.K.N. A.R. (Court)