The court's discretion to add parties to a suit is to be exercised judicially, considering factors such as the direct interest of the applicant in the subject matter of the suit, the necessity of their presence for effective and complete adjudication, and whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of their rights.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein seeks to be added as a party-defendant to the proceedings by reason of the fact that during the pendency of the present suit an agreement for sale of the suit premises was entered upon between himself and the defendant No. 3, the owner of the suit property, under which agreement be claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 37,656/- to the defendant No. 3.

( 2 ) THE present suit filed by the plaintiffs against, inter alia, the defendant No. 3 is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit-property upon payment of the balance sum of the purchase money to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who had acquired the property under the Land Acquisition Act. It is not disputed that the plain-tiffs purchased the property at an auction sale held by the defendant No. 1, who admittedly bad a statutory right of preemption to purchase the land in the event of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 deciding to sell the same. The petitioner alleges that although the present proceedings have been instituted in 1967-68, the same has not been disposed of during the last fourteen years and although the evidence in the suit has been concluded, the suit remains part-heard and adjourned. It is urged that the defendant No. 3 is not taking any interest in the proceedings in view of the agreement for sale executed in petitioners favour. It is contended that the right of the petitioner is solely dependent on the outcome of this suit (Suit No. 2046 of 1968), now pending before the Court, and if due to inaction and laches on the part of the defendant No. 3 the interest of the defendant No. 3 is not properly represented in the suit, the petitioner's interest will be greatly prejudiced and/or jeopardised.

( 3 ) MR. Dipankar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, for the proposition that the question of addition of parties is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and in order to be added as a party to a suit relating to a property, the applicant should have direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest.

( 4 ) MR. Ghosh has also placed reliance on Effective Trade House (P.) Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (1981) 2 Cal LJ 4, where the Court considered the test for adding a party to a suit and viewed that a person acquiring a direct interest in the subject matter, of the suit under a commercial agreement could sustain a prayer for being added as a party. In that case, a consent older was passed creating a security in favour of the petitioner, subject to the permanent lien of the plaintiff-Bank arising out of an original mortgage. In deciding the question at issue as to whether the petitioner having entered into a contract with the defendant to run a mill, which was the subject matter of the mortgage, by investment of his moneys could be said to have such an interest on the subject matter as would entitle them to be added as a party to the suit, the Court held that in deciding the question it is to be considered whether upon the agreement between the parties the petitioner has got any interest in the plaintiffs security or not. Merely because the plaintiff and the defendant have now agreed to release that part of the security from the original mortgage could not be a ground for holding that the petitioner had no interest in the plaintiff's security.

( 5 ) RELIANCE was also placed by Mr. Ghosh on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jayanta Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, the principles enunciated wherein are that acquisition of interest in property is not the sole test for determining the locus standi to move a writ petition challenging the validity of the order passed under the Land Acquisition Act, but prejudicial affection of a right concerning the property should be the test to determine the locus standi to move a writ petitio