AKSHAY KUMAR DAS Vs. KALPATARU SACHINANDAN TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order passed on 2nd February,2002 by learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 18 of 1997 by rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code) filed by the petitioner to add him as a party in that suit. Learned District Judge has opined that since the plaintiffs have instituted the suit in accordance with the provision in Section 92 of the Code and they are taking care of the dispute, addition of the present petitioner as a party to the proceeding is not necessary.

(3.) THE averments in the plaint or the reply in the written statement by the contesting defendants do not indicate that the presence of the petitioner as a party to the litigation is neces ¬sary for an effective adjudication of the dispute in accordance with the provision of law in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code. If his evidence is necessary he may be called as a witness by either of the parties. Under such circumstances, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the contesting Opposite party members/defendants, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the impugned order is not interfered with and the Civil Revision is dismissed.