Subhro Kamal Mukherjee,J. - (1.) This is a revisional application by the defendant No. 1 under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging Order No. 51 dated December 12,2000 whereby the learned trial Judge allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintif If/opposite party No. 1 and directed addition of the opposite parties Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 of this revisional application as defendants in the said suit.
(2.) Title Suit No. 105 of 1998 was instituted in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sixth Court at Alipore, District: 24 Parganas (South) by the plaintiff & opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4 herein, inter alia, for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegations that the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 was elected as the General Secretary of the South Eastern Railway Men's Union a registered trade union, in the general meeting held at Waltair on November 5, 1997; a list of office bearers, who were elected at the said meeting was circulated by the Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, to all concern; in the said meeting defendant No.1/petitioner was elected as the President; on or about December 9,1998 the defendant No.1/petitioner, as the President of the said trade union, has issued a letter to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Garden Reach Branch intimating them that a resolution has been adopted in the executive committee meeting held on November 30,1998 that plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 has been suspended by the executive committee. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 prayed for a decree for declaration that the meeting of the executive committee held on November 30, 1998 is not legal, valid and proper. A decree for permanent injunction was prayed for as and by way of consequential relief.
(3.) In the said suit plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of the opposite party Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 in the said suit as defendants contending in the said application that since the South Eastern Railway Men's Union is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and as the dispute relates to the activities of the said union, the said trade union is required to be added as a party defendant in the suit. It is, also, contended that the defendant No. 1/petitioner, acting as the President of the said union and ignoring the pendency of the suit and the application for the injunction, appointed J. Bandhopadhyay, opposite party No. 5 herein, who was one of the Additional General Secretaries, as the General Secretary of the union instead of and in place of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 through N.C.Roychdudhury, the opposite party No. 6 herein, the Working President of the union acting as the agent of the defendant No. 1/ petitioner in a meeting of the executive committee held on January 28,1999. It was contended that the said subsequent developments are required to be taken note of and said two persons, namely, opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 in this revisional application are required to be added in the suit for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. In the said application there has been a prayer for addition of Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, the opposite party No. 8, as the proforma defendant in the said suit.;