CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN GROUP LIMITED Vs. BIDYUT KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated March 21, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fifth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.99 of 2006 thereby allowing four petitions for addition of parties. The CAN applications being nos.6011 of 2009 and 5833 of 2009 are also taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE short fact is that the opposite party nos.1 and 2 are the co-owners of the apartment no.9C1 on the 9th Floor of Bay Residential Tower at Hiland Park. THE petitioner is the developer of the same Hiland Park apartments. THE opposite party nos.1 and 2 instituted a Title Suit No.99 of 2006 for declaration, permanent injunction, recovery of compensation, etc. THE petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and the said suit is at the stage of examination of the P.Ws. At that time, two applications for addition of parties were filed one by opposite party nos.15 to 19 and the other by the opposite party nos.20 to 24 for being added as co-plaintiffs. THEreafter, two separate applications were also filed one by opposite party nos.24 to 28 and the other by the opposite party nos.29 to 33 for addition as co-plaintiffs. All the four petitions for addition as co-plaintiffs were allowed by the imnpugned order dated March 21, 2009. Being aggrieved, the developer has filed this application.

(3.) AS per materials on record, there is an association of the flat owners known as Hiland Park Residents ASsociation Limited, a body corporate registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and this association was formed in the year 2004 meaning thereby it was very much in existence at the time of filing of the suit. When public notice was issued under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the C.P.C., this association did not choose to be associated with the suit and in fact, this association did not pray for being added as party before the learned Trial Judge. An application has been filed for being added as party in this revisional application by CAN No.6011 of 2009. This revisional court is now exercising its jurisdiction as to legality, correctness or perversity in the order impugned and not beyond that. The suit has been filed as stated above mainly for compensation and injunction for the personal inconvenience caused to the two flat owners. In fact, a contract to have a flat was done between the owners of the flat and the developer and the so-called association was not in the picture at all. The rights, liabilities and contentions between the original plaintiffs and the developer arose out of a contract between them only and the two flat owners have filed the suit to assert their rights as per contracts. Under such circumstances, Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on the behalf of the petitioner, has referred to the following three decisions:-