UTTAM KUMAR SAHA Vs. HARADHAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 113 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and recovery of possession etc. against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (herein after mentioned as defendants). The suit is at a concluding stage hearing and now fixed for argument. On 21.04.2012, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, praying for adding him as defendant No. 3 in the suit stating inter alia that the lands described in Schedule 3A and 3B of the plaint is an 'ejmali' common pathway, used by him and other successors of Lt. Rajmohan Saha and that he has an easementary right to have egress in ingress through that pathway. He had no knowledge of the suit, instituted by respondent No. 1, against the defendants and therefore, he could not file a petition for adding him as a party initially when the suit was instituted and since he has a right to use the pathway, he is a necessary party to the suit and so, he must be impleaded as a defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff seriously objected the contention of the petitioner inter alia stating that the plaintiff instituted the suit for a definite cause of action against the defendants seeking certain definite relief/decree and that the petitioner is a stranger and has got no cause of action for impleading him as a defendant in the suit.

(3.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury for the petitioner and learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee for the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (defendants).