CO/291/2026 of MD. SHAMS BADAR RAZVI Vs MD. HAMJA AND ORS. on 21 September 2026

1. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner containing Municipal Tax Receipts for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22. This is the second supplementary affidavit, let it be kept with the record. Earlier a supplementary affidavit was also filed on behalf of the petitioner.

2. On the earlier occasion an affidavit of service has been filed and the learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that all the opposite parties have been served with notice along with copy of the revisional application. In spite of service of notice along with copy of the revisional application, none is representing the opposite parties. In such situation, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has sought for declaration in respect of the entire A scheduled property, as mentioned in the plaint and further submits that in paragraph no.12 of the plaint the premises number has been specifically mentioned, wherein the cause of action has arisen and the said premises number has been mentioned as “Z-3/103/K, Jeliapara Road, Police Station- Nadial, Post Office-Badartala, Kolkata”.

4. He further submits that this petitioner has not been made a party in the suit, seeking declaration in respect of the entire schedule property and if a declaration to that regard is passed, then this petitioner shall be affected and prejudiced, as he has not been made a party in the title suit being No. 1972 of 2023, wherein the said declaration in respect of the entire A scheduled property has been sought for by the plaintiff. As such the petitioner had filed an application to be added as a party in the said suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘said code’.

5. After hearing both the sides the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to reject the application seeking to be impleaded as party.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present civil revisional application. After taking into consideration the submission of the learned advocate and on going through the documents furnished through the civil revisional application and the two supplementary affidavits, it transpires that as the A scheduled property of the plaint has been mentioned as the premises number „Z- 3/103,Jeliapara Road‟, whereas in paragraph no.12 of the plaint the premises number has been mentioned as „Z-3/103/K,Jeliapara Road‟. Through the supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, it transpires that through a deed of gift being no.3098 dated 2nd August, 2005 registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Behala, South 24-Parganas, Md. Hamiza has gifted 15 chittaks, 35 Sq.fts of Bastu land to Md. Shams Badar Razvi who is the petitioner herein and through the second supplementary affidavit which has been filed today, it transpires that the name of the petitioner is apparent in the array of owners in respect of premises no.Z-3-103/K,Jeliapara Road as it reveals in the Municipal Tax receipts for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. So it transpires that the said petitioner is a co-owner in respect of the property in regard to which declaration has been sought for by the opposite party/plaintiff. As such this petitioner is a necessary party in the lis pending before the Trial Court. In such circumstance the impugned order through which rejection of the prayer of the addition of the party has been passed is set aside.

7. The present civil revisional application being C.O.291 of 2026 is allowed.

8. The Learned Trial Court is to proceed with the said litigation pending before it after the petitioner being incorporated as a party to the suit.

9. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.

(Supratim Bhattacharya,. J)