A person may be added as a party to a suit if they have a direct interest in the property in question, and their inclusion should not enlarge the scope of the dispute.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. CHALLENGE is to the order dated June 14, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.34 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C.

2. THE question involved in this suit is whether in suit for decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, may add other persons as parties to the suit.

The plaintiff instituted the suit against her brothers praying simply the relief of declaration that she is a co-sharer of the suit property as given in the schedule to the plaint and that she has right to reside in the house in suit, prayer for temporary restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property. The plaintiff knew that she has other sisters but in spite of that, she filed the suit for reliefs stated against her brothers only. The petitioner has also wanted to incorporate the promoter with whom the defendants are alleged to have made a contract contending that the promoters have raised a high rise construction on the suit property. The plaintiff has not stated why they are the necessary parties in the suit for adjudication of the matter in dispute. The plaintiff has not also disclosed how the defendants are related to the suit property or if they are the co-sharers of the suit property.

3. FURTHER, the plaintiffs have not stated any specific cause of action against the left out sisters. She has not stated at all whether the proposed parties possess the suit property or they have any right, title and interest in the suit property. She has simply filed the suit for declaration about her right in respect of the suit property and the prayer for injunction as stated. She has not stated anything how the developer is interest in the suit property or what are the terms of the contract between the proposed defendants and promoters. So, that is a separate dispute between the intending parties inter se.

4. UNDER the above circumstances, if the prayer of the plaintiff is allowed, the scope of the matter of dispute between the parties would be enlarged. There will be no limit of adjudication because the promoters are not the co-sharers at all in respect of the property in suit. So, if the proposed prayer for addition of parties is allowed, the effect will be the suit shall be kept pending for an unending period.

Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 12(A) of the West Bengal Building Regulation of Promotion Act. This contention cannot be ignored in the circumstances; but it should be taken care of with regard to the suit at the appropriate stage by the learned Trial Judge, when the same matter is moved. So, this matter is left for consideration by the learned Trial Judge.

5. MR. Dutta, learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that the prayer for addition of the parties should be granted with a view to avoiding multiplicity of suits. In support of his contention, MR. Dutta has referred to the decision of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 886. He has also referred to the decision of Anil Kumar Shaw and anr. v. Farida Khatoon and anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209 and thus, he submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application for addition of parties. With due respect to MR. Dutta, I am of the view that neither of the decisions is applicable in the instant case. The first case laid down that a person may be added as a party if he has a direct interest in the property in suit. I have stated above that the plaintiff has not stated the status of the intending parties with regard to the suit property. Though, they are the sisters of the plaintiff except the promoters. So far as promoters are concerned, at present, I do not find another material in support of the content