SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) In a suit for declaration, injunction and furnishing of accounts, an application was filed on behalf of one the Garulia Bazar Dokandar Kalyan Samity for being added as party defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff-petitioner claiming himself to be a co-sharer of the property filed a suit for declaration of his right as a co-sharer and joint landlord in respect of Schedule 'A' property. In the said proceeding, an application was filed under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which a receiver was appointed for collecting the rents.
(2.) The necessity for filing the application as argued by Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the proposed applicants is that the suit is collusive and by appointing the receiver the plaintiff is seeking to recover the entire amount to which the plaintiff is not entitled to even if it is assumed that the share as claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner is sacrosanct. In the application the proposed applicants did not say anything about the creation of tenancy or who are their immediate landlords.
(3.) However, the principal grievance appears to be that since a receiver is appointed and taking advantage of the appointment of such receiver, amounts are sought to be collected from the said shop owners to which the plaintiff-petitioner or the parties to the suit are not entitled to in law, the learned Court below ought to have added the applicants.;