The judgment established that the addition of a party in a suit should be necessary and not delay the proceedings. It also clarified that allegations of fraud must be relevant to the proceedings to be considered by the court.

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the second defendant in a suit (Title Suit No. 525 of 2017) instituted by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 (Goutam and Abhilasha Surana) against the opposite party no. 3 (Maa Jashoda Rice Mill Private Limited), being the first defendant, and the petitioner (West Bengal Financial Corporation).

2. In the said suit, by the first impugned order dated December 14, 2018, the opposite party no. 4, namely Tapas Das, was added as a defendant. By the second impugned order dated January 7, 2019, the petitioner's application for review of the first impugned order was rejected.

3. The storyline of the present revision has two distinct but converging branches.

4. The first branch originated in Title Suit No. 11 of 2013 being filed by Tapas, the opposite party no. 4, in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bolpur, District: Birbhum. The present opposite party no. 3 (Maa Jashoda Rice Mill Private Limited) was the first defendant and one Saptarshi Das, an alleged director of Maa Jashoda Rice Mill, the second, in the said suit. The present plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2, namely Goutam and Abhilasha, were proforma defendant nos. 8 and 9 therein. The reliefs claimed in Title Suit No. 11 of 2013 were:

"(a) A decree declaring the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.03.2012 between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 as illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(b) Declaration by a preliminary decree that the plaintiff is entitled accounts of the assets and profits of the defendant No.1 from formation till decree.

(c) Appointment of Commissioner of Accounts by the Learned Court in respect of the assets, profits and loss of the defendant No.1 from its formation till date.

(d) Final decree of the claim of the plaintiff of such amounts as may be found by the Commissioner of Accounts in his report.

(e) Cost of the suit.

(f) Receiver.

(g) Such further and other, relief or reliefs as the Learned Court would be pleased to allow to the plaintiff in law and Equity. "

5. The basis of Tapas' suit was that he and Saptarshi were directors of Maa Jashoda Rice Mill Private Limited at the time of its formation and obtained loan from the United Bank, Bolpur branch. Subsequently Tapas and Saptarshi fell out and allegedly under undue pressure, Tapas agreed to retire from the board of directors of the company and to transfer the shares held by Tapas and his wife in favour of Saptarshi and/or the latter's nominated persons. Accordingly a memorandum of understanding was executed by Tapas and Saptarshi on such lines on March 1, 2012, which was challenged in Title Suit No. 11 of 2013.

6. In his suit, Tapas sought to add the present petitioner, the West Bengal Financial Corporation (WBFC), as a party by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court having rejected such application, Tapas filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to C.O. No. 2794 of 2017. Vide order dated November 26, 2018, a co-ordinate bench of this court dismissed the said application on merits, holding inter alia that in view of the nature of the dispute raised by the parties in the suit, the presence of the WBFC in the suit was not at all necessary.

7. It is relevant to mention here that Tapas Das, the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 11 of 2013, also filed an application for temporary injunction in connection with the said suit. Such application having been rejected by the trial court, Tapas preferred a miscellaneous appeal, bearing no. 14 of 2014. The Additional District Judge at Bolpur, District: Birbhum, by his judgment and order dated September 5, 2014, allowed the appeal on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order and restraining the defendant/respondent. 2, namely Saptarshi Das, from alienating or transferring Maa Jashoda Rice Mill Private Limited Company or i