The presence of a party is not necessary for the proper adjudication of a matter if the party has no interest in the suit and has failed to appear or contest the suit.

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.

Order impugned dated 6th May, 2015 passed by the 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1612 of 2008 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner made in application for addition of party under order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is under challenge in this revisional application.

2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties being the plaintiffs filed an eviction suit against opposite party no.2, the tenant, in respect of garage situated and lying on the ground floor at premises no. 46/1A, S. N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata – 14 with a prayer for eviction of O.P. No.2 and delivery of possession.

3. He submits that the mother of the petitioner, Mr. . Maya Rani Laha, being a co-sharer of the property was made party as proforma defendant no.2 in the aforesaid suit by the plaintiff/O.P. No.1. He submits that the mother of the petitioner being the proforma defendant no.2 in the suit was served with summons but she did not appear. However, petitioner's mother died on 6th August, 2012 and the petitioner being the successor of the proforma defendant no.2/Late Maya Rani Laha moved an application on 30th March, 2015 for being added as party to the suit. He submits, although plaintiff has claimed that the opposite party no.2 was inducted by him as tenant but the opposite party no.2 in his written statement stated that he was inducted as a tenant by the mother of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings and that was why petitioner moved this revisional application on 30th March, 2015. He submits that the petitioner was carrying on business from that garage space and, therefore, plaintiff/petitioner is a necessary and proper party to contest the suit. He submits that in case a decree of eviction is passed, in that event, the petitioner would be prejudiced and he would be without his business.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner's mother was admittedly a cosharer and she was made proforma defendant no.2 in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner should be added as a party to this proceeding. He submits that by an order dated 20th November, 2013, the learned Court below recorded death intimation in respect of proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha since deceased and recorded an order for taking steps regarding substitution. He then submits that by a subsequent order dated 26th November, 2014 learned Court on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for expunging the name of the proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha passed an order for expunging the name of Maya Rani Laha.

5. He submits that the learned Court below disposed of that application holding that Maya Rani Laha expired and for proper adjudication of the case legal heirs of Maya Rani Laha was not required to be made parties since no relief had been sought for against Maya Rani Laha. Therefore, name of proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha (since deceased) could be expunged from the cause title of the plaint.

6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in view of the provisions under Order I Rule 10(2), the Court has power to add suo motu a party to the proceedings but in the instant case, the petitioner sought to be added as party since he would be seriously prejudiced in case an eviction decree is passed against the tenant.

7. He submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the scope of the application filed by the petitioner disclosing the facts and also failed to take note of the fact that the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. He submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the aforesaid suit and he only came to learn from the learned advocate conducting the suit. He submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the case made out by the petitioner and ultimately held that the petitioner's mother failed to appear and cont