STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SUDHANGSHU KUMAR LAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order No. 17 dated 29-4-89 passed by the learned District Judge, West Dinajpur at Balurghat in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1987.

(2.) The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit against the opposite party No. 2 State of West Bengal and others for relief in respect of the disputed property. The State Government entered appearance in the suit and took a plea in paragraph 8 of the, written statement that' the State had already taken possession of the disputed tank which had been leased out to Binsira Gram Panchayat. According to the defendant the said tank was excavated by the Gram Panchayat under the development scheme and the Gram Panchayat is still in possession of the tank. Inspite of this defence the plaintiff did not choose to implead the Gram Panchayat in the suit. The suit had already ended in favour of the plaintiff. The State has preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. I of 1987 which is pending before the learned District; Judge at Balurghat.

(3.) The petitioner, Dhiren Oraon, Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat, representing the said Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Order 1 Rule: 10(2) of C.P.C. for his addition as the co-respondent in the said appeal, Since the petitioner could not produce any document to show his interest in the disputed property, the learned District Judge dismissed his application. Here in this court the petitioner, Dhiren, filed Xerox copy of some documents as annexure and argues that the plaintiff in the suit did not implead him despite the plea of the defendant No. 2 State of West Bengal that the State had taken possession of the property and settled it with Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property. So he is very much a necessary party to the suit and now in appeal. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party-plaintiff that since the State contested the proceeding and the petitioner would reap the fruits of the appeal, it is no use allowing him to figure as a party in the appeal. We must not overlook the fact that the petitioner claims an interest in the property and, according to the State as pleaded in the written statement, the property is now vested in the petitioner. It shall be just and proper to allow the petitioner to figure as a party in the appeal provided he satisfies the court below that he is interested in the property. Once the petitioner satisfies the court below by further production of document that he is interested in and is in possession of the property, the petitioner shall be impleaded in the appeal as a co-respondent, as prayed for. Normally a party shall not be allowed to be added in appeals, and in no circumstances it shall be done if the court is invited by the petitioner to decide an issue the disposal of which is not necessary for disposal of the suit or for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. But in the facts of the case it should be allowed for the simple reason that the court will not be required to answer an alien issue. The petitioner asserts his settlement from State and his possession. That is also the defence of the State. In view of such assertion by the petitioner here he should be allowed to contest the appeal. He may have to adduce evidence, and particularly documentary, to prove his settlement and possession.