SOUMEN SEN, J.

This revisional application is arising out of an order passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to add the petitioners as parties in a suit instituted by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 8.

2. In order to decide the present revisional application and find out whether the learned Trial Judge exercised his discretion properly in refusing to add the petitioners in the suit instituted by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 against the rest of the opposite parties, the scope of the suits that are presently pending before the Trial Judge is required to be examined.

3. In or about April, 2005 the petitioners instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 50 of 2005 against the opposite parties praying for a declaration that the compromise decree obtained in Title Suit No. 90 of 2004 by the opposite parties is void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and the sale deed by defendants'/owners in favour of M/s. Packard Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ritman Commercial Pvt. Ltd. is fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff. In the said plaint, it is alleged by the said petitioners that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 with ulterior motive had purchased the suit property from the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in spite of having prior notice and knowledge about a registered agreement of sale executed by the said opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in favour of the plaintiffs on 15th November, 2002 inasmuch as the said conveyance in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was executed in violation of an order of injunction passed in an earlier proceeding, the said deed of sale in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. Subsequent thereto, in or about November, 2007, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 instituted the suit against the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 for a declaration that the said opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 do not have any right, title or interest over and in respect of the suit property and a further declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in respect of the suit property by way of purchase from the defendants by a registered deed of conveyance dated Ist March, 2005.

5. In this subsequent suit the plaintiffs pray for addition of party. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs for addition of party seems to be that the plaintiffs are the prior agreement holder in respect of the suit property and in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in 2005, namely, Title Suit No. 50 of 2005, the plaintiffs have categorically prayed for a declaration that the deed of conveyance executed by the said opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1& 2 are fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs which, in fact, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 suppressed in the suit instituted by them in 2007. In the said suit apparently a very innocuous prayer was made, namely, declarations that the said opposite parties are the absolute owners in respect of the suit property under the deed of conveyance alleged to have been executed on 1st March, 2005 ostensibly with a view to obtain a collusive decree in order to frustrate the suit filed by the plaintiffs where the issue relating to the execution of such conveyance by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is an issue and required to be considered and decided at the trial seems to be the apprehension of the plaintiffs resulting in filing the said application for addition of party.

6. In the application for addition of party, the petitioners tried to demonstrate the conduct of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 preceding the execution of the registered agreement for sale on 15th November, 2002 and it was alleged that the petitioners have a genuine claim over arid in respect of the suit property by reason of execution of the registered agreement for sale on 15th November, 2002 inasmuch as the deed of conveyance that was executed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1