Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ik Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Jaharlal Sarkar And Ors on 27 July, 2018
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
27.7.2018 kc(66 of 9.7.18) C.O. 391 of 2018 IK Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
-versus-
Jaharlal Sarkar and Ors.
Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Mr. Anit Rakshit, Mr. Asim Kr. Chattopadhyay..........For the petitioner.
The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is the petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 7th November, 2017 passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code).
Having heard Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere.
The plaintiff/petitioner (hereafter the plaintiff) prayed for a declaration that the defendants are monthly tenants under it in respect of the suit property. A further declaration was prayed that the defendants are not thika tenants.
More than 33 years after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff prayed for addition of party thereby seeking to implead the Thika Controller as a defendant. The learned Judge in the trial court has rejected the application primarily on two grounds. The plaintiff having prayed for declaration that the defendants are monthly tenants under it, it is for the plaintiff to prove its case and succeed in obtaining a decree to that effect and for such purpose the presence of the Thika Controller is not necessary.
The other ground is that of belated approach. The trial court has observed that there was no explanation in the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code as to why it took the plaintiff more than 33 years to seek impleadment of the Thika Controller as a defendant.
Pertinently, the learned Judge has recorded that the prayer for addition of the Thika Controller as a defendant stands rejected 'at this stage'. It is, therefore, clear that the issue as to whether the Thika Controller should be added as a defendant or not, has not been finally decided by the learned Judge. Law is well settled that during the course of a proceeding, the civil court is entitled to add any person as a defendant provided the court comes to the conclusion that such addition is essential for effective adjudication of the suit.
I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has exercised his discretion wisely and this revisional application is liable to fail; hence it is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)