Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of a petitioner and is directed against the order dated August 16, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.83 of 2009.
(2.) THE petitioner herein instituted an Other Suit No.53 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah praying for a decree of declaration of partition, injunction, etc. and the said suit is still pending for disposal. The plaintiff/petitioner has claimed that he had purchased 1 decimal of land under plot no.4918 at Mouza- Panchla, District Howrah along with a shop room and still in possession from the date of purchase and the said shop room is let out to the opposite party no.2 with regard to the selfsame property, the opposite party no.1, namely Sridam Halder, instituted a Title Suit No.67 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah against the tenant, Susanta Saha, praying for a decree of khas possession of the said suit and the said suit is still pending. The tenant, namely, Susanta Saha, is contesting both the suits by filing appropriate written statements therein. Ultimately, he filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of the two suits to one Court so that there might not be any conflict of judgment and accordingly both the suits are being tried by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah and the Title Suit No.67 of 2004 has been renumbered as Title Suit No.83 of 2009. The petitioner has interest in the suit property and so he wants to contest the Title Suit No.83 of 2009 and for that reason, he filed an application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. to contest the said Title Suit No.83 of 2009. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) NOW the point is whether the said decision of dismissal of the application for addition of party should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the Title Suit No.83 of 2009 relates eviction of a tenant by his landlord. So, that is a pure dispute between a landlord and a tenant and in that suit, Sri Sridam Halder, claimed as landlord in respect of the suit property. That suit is at the stage of hearing argument. At that time, the petitioner filed the application for addition of parties. So, from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the object of the petitioner is nothing to delay the completion of the trial of that suit anyhow. If the plaintiff of that suit does not come within the provisions of definition of landlord so far as the relief sought for against the tenant, the suit was likely to fail and for that reason, the plaintiff may not be a necessary party. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge is quite justified in rejecting the application for addition of parties at the belated stage. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application fails to succeed and it is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.;