Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THIS Revisional Application is directed against the Order passed by the 2nd Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore (District South 24 -Parganas) in Title Suit No. 54 of 1995 of the Said Court. Vide the impugned Order the learned trial Court had rejected an application filed on behalf of the original applicants Noor Jahan Begam and Jahanara Begum (since deceased and substituted by her legal representatives, now petitioner Nos. 2(a), (b) & (c) under U/Order -1 Rule -10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P. Code filed on 03.07.2002. In that application those petitioners had prayed for being added as parties in the suit pending between the present O.P. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as plaintiffs, and the O.P No. 4 as the defendant.
(2.) IT may be mentioned that the suit was filed by the O.P Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the O.P No. 4 for Specific Performance in relation to the suit property being premises No. 52/1 A, Bright Street, Kolkata -17. It was alleged that the said defendant/opposite Party No. 4 had entered into an agreement with them on 29.05.1994 for sale of the aforesaid suit property for a consideration price of Rs. 1,05,000/ - on receipt of the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from them as earnest and part payment, thereby leaving balance consideration money amounting to Rs. 95,000/ -. It was allegedly agreed between those parties that the transaction would be completed preferably within one year from the date of execution of the agreement. But the defendant/opposite Party No. 4 failed to perform his part of the agreement on account of which the plaintiffs approached the learned Court below for a Decree of Specific Performance against him. During pendency of the suit the petitioners Noor Jahan Begam and Jahanara Begum interceded and prayed for being added as parties by way of their petition U/O.1 R. 10(2) r/w S. 151, C.P. Code, which was rejected by the learned Court below vide the impugned order. The contention of the petitioners was that they were the actual owners of the disputed premises, and that the defendant No. 1 had no Right, Title or Interest in the same, and was therefore incapable of transferring it to the plaintiffs.
(3.) IN rejecting the application the learned trial Court observed that the petitioners were not entitled to be added as parties in the suit for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale, and that by allowing them to be impleaded, the nature and character of the dispute would be converted into a Title Suit, which was not permissible. The relevant extracts from the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge happen to be - - "..........The primary meaning of a party is a litigant who has a part to play in the proceeding. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceeding. The power of the Court under sub -Rule (2) of Rule -10, Order -1, C.P.C. may be exercised at any stage of the proceeding subject to the law of limitation and the discretion given is wide the object being to avoid multiplicity of the suit and conflict of decision. But the discretion has to be exercised by the Court judiciously. The petitioners are not parties to the contract for sale and they are strangers to the contract. In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale the strangers to the contract making a claim adverse to the title of the vendor -defendant that they are owners of the contracted property are neither necessary nor proper parties. If the petitioners are impleaded in this suit for a specific performance of contract for sale, the very complex of the litigation would be converted into a title suit, where the impleadment of a person would change the complex of the litigation his/her presence is neither necessary for the decision to the question involved in the proceeding nor to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the case. Such a person is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The suit for specific performance of contract cannot be converted into a title suit and the remedy of the petitioners lies elsewhere. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record and the discussions made above, I am, of the firm opinion that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party in the instant suit. Hence, Ordered That the application under Order -1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by Noor Jahan Begum and Jahanara Begum on 3.7.2002, is rejected on contest but without cost.;