BISWANATH CHATTORAJ Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order No.53 dated December 23, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Katwa in Title Suit No.4 of 1998 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a title suit being numbered as Title Suit No.4 of 1998 for eviction of a tenant and damages for use and occupation of the suit premises, as described in the schedule of the plaint. THE plaintiffs filed the said suit in the capacity of trustees of Ahibhusan Dutta Trust Estate. In that suit, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC praying for addition of parties as defendants. That application was allowed by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

(3.) SIMILARLY the decision of Mt. Bindru v. Sada Ram and Ors. reported in AIR 1960 J and K 67 has also laid down that a party who comes at the belated stage need not be impleaded as a party in a litigation which has progressed considerably. If the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are added then the evidence to be recorded in the main litigation between the landlords and a tenant would not be limited to the same. But the question of right, title and interest between the plaintiffs and the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 would arise and so the main enquiry in the suit will not remain the same as before. In such a situation, the decision of Mt. Bindru (supra) will also be applicable in the instant case and so the application for addition of parties should not be granted in such circumstances.