Order on Board

1. Heard.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, Bhatapara to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.3/A/2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 1 to 5 are prosecuting a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title, permanent injunction, declaring the Will Deeds dated 16.08.2017 and 11.06.2018 as null and void and also for possession of the suit land. The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, S/o Trijuginarayan Agrawal, has not been made a party/defendant in the suit before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is in possession of the suit land by virtue of an agreement executed by the defendant No.1 Pranadhar Agrawal, to cultivate the same on his behalf. The defendant No. 1 is claiming his title and possession over the suit land, and despite knowing the fact that the petitioner/intervenor is in physical possession of the suit land on behalf of the defendant No.1. he has not been made a party/defendant in the said civil suit. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading himself as a party/defendant in the said suit. He would further submit that since the petitioner is in the actual physical possession of the suit land on behalf of the defendant No. 1 by virtue of the agreement executed by him, he should be impleaded as the defendant in the suit. The defendant No.1 himself is not properly defending his case, though he also filed his counter claim before the learned trial Court. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that defendant No. 1 is properly prosecuting his case and the possession of the petitioner, if any is on behalf of the defendant No. 1; he could not be treated as a necessary party in the suit, and the same can be decided even in his absence. Since the petitioner has a substantial right over the suit land, he may be impleaded as party/defendant in the said civil Suit.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 on caveat would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner is claiming possession over the suit land, through the defendant No. 1. The petitioner is not having any substantial title over the suit property and claiming through the defendant No. 1, who is already a party defendant No. 1 and properly defending his case by filing counter claim before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. His interest in the suit land is only a commercial interest between the defendant No. 1 and the petitioner, and there is no legal interest over the suit land. Since the petitioner is neither a legal heir nor having any legal interest over the suit land, he cannot be impleaded as a party/defendant in the said civil suit and the plaintiffs have properly arrayed the party/defendant, against whom he is claiming right and title over the suit land. The order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

6. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that he is in possession of the suit land by virtue of the agreement dated 21.02.2021 executed by defendant No.1 and cultivating the suit land every year; therefore, he is the necessary party to the suit, and he should also be impleaded as a defendant. From perusal of the documents and a copy of the plaint annexed with th