logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 029 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : CRP No. 93 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Parties : Anowar Hossain, Tripura & Others Versus Imam Hossain, Tripura
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Abhijit Sengupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
Date of Judgment : 06-01-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order XXII Rule 3 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Sections Mentioned:
- Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
- Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
- Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

2. Catch Words:
- impleadment
- will
- unregistered will
- jurisdiction
- necessary party
- revision
- petition

3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a revision challenging the trial court’s order that allowed the respondent, Imam Hossain, to be impleaded as a plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, based on a purported will dated 14‑09‑2021. The original plaintiff, Chhamina Bibi, had died during the suit. The petitioners argued that the will was unregistered and that the respondent should have invoked Order XXII Rule 3 instead. The trial court held that the validity of the will could be decided during trial and that the respondent was a proper and necessary party, thus permitting his impleadment. The appellate court found no jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decision, noting that a wrong citation of provision does not invalidate the application and that registration of a will is not mandatory. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, counsel for the petitioners.

2. This Revision is filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dt.11.11.2025 in case No.T.S. 05 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Sepahijala District, Sonamura.

3. The record indicates that the original plaintiff Chhamina Bibi died on 13.02.2025 during the pendency of the suit.

4. The sole respondent Imam Hossain filed an application on 24.04.2025 invoking Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short) to implead him as a plaintiff by placing reliance on a Will dt.14.09.2021 said to have been executed by the original plaintiff Chhamina Bibi.

5. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the said application stating specifically that the validity of the Will is a matter to be adjudicated during the trial and that the stage at which the suit is pending, the Court can only look into the matter whether the respondent is proper or necessary party for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. It, therefore, allowed the application of the respondent by invoking Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC.

6. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Will set up by the respondent is unregistered and has not been produced in any proceeding anywhere and, therefore, the Court below ought not to have believed the Will and impleaded the respondent as a plaintiff in the suit.

7. The respondent had no doubt invoked Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead him as plaintiff in the suit instead of invoking Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC. The Court below, therefore, ought to have treated the application filed by the respondent under Order I Rule 10(2) as an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC. Be that as it may, merely because the respondent had quoted a wrong legal provision, the application filed by him cannot be rejected. The trial Court has not accepted the valid execution of the Will dt. 14.09.2021 pleaded by the respondent and had anyway left it open to be adjudicated during the trial and has only allowed the respondent to come on record since he appeared to be a proper or necessary party. There is also no requirement in law that a Will should be a registered Will.

8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Revision fails and is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal