Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

CIVIL REVISION NO.3821 OF 2016

Md.  Abdul Gofur Mia being died his heirs-

Md. Habibur Rahman Riad and others

  ..................... Defendant-Petitioners.

-VERSUS-

Shefali Begum and others.

....................Plaintiff-Opposite parties.

No one appears

                  ----- For the petitioners.

Mr. Abul Kalam Chowdhury, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Iqbal Kalam Chowdhury and

Mr. A.K.M. Mahidul Islam, Advocates

----- For the opposite party Nos.1(a)-1(f).

Heard on 21.11.2024 and 05.12.2024 Judgment on 17.12.2024

By this Rule, the opposite parties were called upon to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 02.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Noakhali in Civil Revision No.17 of 2016, disallowing the civil revision and affirming the order dated 03.03.2016  passed  by  the  learned  Assistant  Judge,  1st Additional  Court,  Sadar,  Noakhali  in  Title  Suit  No.179  of 2004  allowing  an  application  for  addition  as  co-plaintiffs should not be set aside.

Facts necessary for the disposal of the Rule are that the opposite parties 4-12 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.179 of 2004 before the Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Noakhali praying  for  a  declaration  that  3(three)  sale  deeds  dated 14.10.1981,  14.01.1982  and  24.05.1982  in  favor  of  the defendant No.1 and the petitioners as described in schedule ‘ka’ of the plaint are forged, fraudulent, ineffective and void.

During the pendency of the suit, on 08.02.2016, the opposite parties 1-3 filed an applicant under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding co-plaintiffs in the suit.

Subsequently,  the  learned  Assistant  Judge,  1st Additional Court, Sadar, Noakhali, by the judgment and order dated  03.03.2013,  allowed  the  application,  adding  the opposite parties 1-3 as plaintiffs in the suit.

Being  aggrieved,  the  plaintiff-petitioners  Nos.  10-12 preferred Civil Revision No.17 of 2016 before District Judge Noakhali. Eventually, the learned Additional District Judge, 1st  Court,  Noakhali,  by  the  judgment  and  order  dated 02.10.2010, rejected the Civil Revision and affirmed those passed by the trial Court.

Being aggrieved, the above plaintiff-petitioners filed the present Civil Revision before this Court under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the instant Rule with an order of stay, which was extended from time to time.

I have anxiously considered the submission inserted in the  Civil  Revisional  Application  by  the  petitioner  and  the submission made by the learned advocate for the opposite parties,  pursued  the  impugned  judgment,  the  application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the other materials on record.

It manifests from the records that opposite parties 1-3 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the addition of party as co-plaintiffs on the plea that they have purchased 51 decimals of the land of the suit- land from the plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 by a registration deed No.11451 dated 06.10.2013. Therefore, they have acquired a right to the suit property by the above deed. It also admitted that the deed was obtained during the pendency of the suit. However, it manifests that lis pendens does not make the deed invalid, only that the deed is subject to the result of the suit. Moreover, if the original plaintiff does not contest the suit, the subject matter may not prosecute the suit, adversely affecting the rights of the new recipients of the suit land.

In  view  of  the  above,  it  reveals  that  the  applicant- opposite parties have accrued a right to be impleaded as co- plaintiffs in the suit either under the provisions Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the provisions Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as they are necessary parties in the suit. 

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the trial court and the Revisional Court below  correctly  and  justifiedly  considered  the  matter  in allowing  the  application  for  the  addition  of  parties  of  the opposite parties 1-3 as co-plaintiffs. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the Rule.

Resultantly, the Rule is discharged with cost. 

The order of stay passed by this Court at the time of issuance of Rule stands vacated.

Communicate this judgment at once.

……………………. (Md. Salim, J).

Kabir/BO