This revision petition arises from the order dated 16.1.1985 passed by the learned Muasiff (I), Jorhat, in Title Suit No. 96 of 1980j rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for adding them as party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC.

2. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners Abinash Chandra and Sankai Ghosh, are to be added as parties under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC in the Title Suit No. 96 of 1980, The learned counsel for the parties have referred me to the decisions in Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar a Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886; Bindeshwari vs. Dr. Sheo Nandan, AIR 1973 Pat. 347; Deputy Commissioner vs. Rama Krishan, AIR 1953 SC 521; Narayana Chandra vs. Matri Vandar, AIR 1974 Calcutta 358 and (1956)/ All E. R. 273, Amon vs. Raphael. A close reading of these decisions reveals that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a 'direct interest' in the subject-matter of litigation as opposed to 'indirect interest' or 'commercial interest' or 'equitable interest' or 'eventual interest'.

3. Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners sub­mits that the petitioners have a 'direct interest' in the subject matter of the litigation for th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document