The court has the discretion to add necessary or proper parties to a suit to effectively adjudicate the questions involved, and a person must be directly or legally interested in the action to be added as a party.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in the instant revisional applications were the applicants in application for addition of parties and are aggrieved by the Orders dated 5/5/2022, passed by Learned Civil Judge Senior Division 2nd Court at Barasat North 24 Parganas, in Title suit No – 480 of 2017.

The case of the applicants/petitioners in the Learned Court below may be summed up thus:

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the sole defendant and the same is pending before the Learned Court for adjudication.

2. That the plaintiff herein is trying to sell out the entire suit property to some local promoter and for that she is asking all the tenants over the suit property to quit and vacate immediately.

3. That the plaintiff did not mention about the presence and occupancy of the applicants/petitioners over the suit property and moreover she falsely stated that the sole defendant is in occupancy over the entire suit property.

4. That for proper adjudication it is necessary that the applicants be made party to this suit as one of the defendants.

The Learned Court below upon considering the said applications was pleased to reject the prayers of the petitioners for addition of parties by Order no – 56 dated 5/5/2022.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 5/5/2022 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division 2nd Court at Barasat North 24 Parganas in Title suit No – 480 of 2017 have come up with three separate revisional applications being C.O. No. 2173 of 2022, C.O No. 2176 of 2022, and C.O. NO. 2178 of 2022. As the three revisional applications arise from a common order involving similar facts and common question of law, these were taken up for analogous hearing.

It is the contentions of the petitioners that the Learned Trial Court below acted illegally in rejecting the applications of the petitioners without considering that the plaintiff did not file written objection against the application of the petitioners and as such the Learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the said applications of the petitioners. It is further contended that the Learned Trial Court acted illegally in rejecting the applications of the petitioners without considering that for proper adjudication of the suit, the petitioners are very much required to be added as party. It is also contended that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the right of the petitioners will be prejudiced if the petitioners are not impleaded as party to the said proceedings.

Pursuant to filing of these applications notice was issued upon opposite Party no – 1/Plaintiff in the three applications, and the opposite Party no – 1/Plaintiff appeared and contested the applications. As proforma opposite party no – 2 is the defendant in the suit and any order passed in this application will not prejudice the said opposite party the service of notice upon the said opposite party is dispensed with.

Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioners and Learned Advocate for the opposite party no – 1/plaintiff. Perused the petitions filed and materials on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that the Learned Court below erred in rejecting the prayer of his clients for addition of party in the suit. Learned Advocate further submits that inspite of filing copy of Bank Pass book, Telephone Bills, Aadhar Card and Copy of Income Tax return Learned Court did not take the same into consideration before arriving at a decision Learned Advocate also submits that the petitioners have filed 3 separate suits against the plaintiff/opposite Party no – 1 praying for a decree of injunction that the petitioners should not be evicted by plaintiff/opposite party no – 1 save and except by due process of law which ought to have been considered by the Learned Court.

Learned Advocate for the opposite Party no – 1/Plaintiff submits that no relief is sought against the petitioners thus the Learned Court rightly rejected the prayer of the pe