B.M.Mitra, J. - (1.) -The present revisional application is directed against order No. 4 dated 3rd February, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in T. S. No. 289 of 1995. The said revisional application is taken up for hearing on contest. In the meantime there are applications filed by some of the parties for vacating the interim order. This Court does not think it necessary to deal with the same as it proposes to dispose of the main matter and whatever will be result in the main matter the other application will abide by the result of the same. Before commencement of hearing six sets of applications for addition of parties have been filed by the respective Unions representing the bank employees of different banks and the said applications for addition of parties were allowed on consent as it was felt that as the matter is concerning the interest of all the banking associations proposed to be added they should be heard for effective adjudication of the controversy.
(2.) The impugned order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application is one of refusal to entertain application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is necessary to refer to the brief background of the facts of the case. After filing of the connected suit a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was pressed for hearing for selfsame and/or analogous purpose of injunction and by an order dated 1.2.95 notice was issued on the said petition. But the prayer for interim order of injunction was refused. Then the subsequent application under section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure saw the light of the day and it was sought to be suggested that during the period of interregnum intervening by a day namely on 2.2.95 certain developments have taken place which warrants reconsideration and further necessitate passing of an interim order of injunction. In the connected petition on which the said prayer is made is for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant opposite party No. 1 and his agents from taking any resolution and/or arriving at any settlement on 6.2.95 or any subsequent date thereto. By the earlier petition of injunction under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff petitioner prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the same defendant opposite party and his agents and office bearers from carrying on any further negotiations from taking any resolution or arriving any settlement reaching the workmen in the banking industry to the exclusion of Indian Nationalised Bank Employees Congress. While considering the present petition on which the prayer for injunction was made, this Court looked into the prayers of the plaint of the connected suit being T. S. No. 289 of 1995. It has been elucidated from all the parties appearing at the time of hearing that the defendant opposite party No. 1 is a conglomeration of a body of persons having no juristic entity. This Court was made to ponder that if it is the admitted position that the defendant opposite party No. 1 does not have any juristic entity then whether a relief can be sought for against the same. A person in law can only be added in the category of parties within the held of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and unless a party is considered to be a person in law, it does not satisfy the test of pre-requisite ingredients of locus standi of a party to figure in a suit.
(3.) Mr. Hirak Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of one of the parties, while answering to the said query made by the Court has referred to a decision in the case of Indian Bank Association and Another vs. Calcutta Transport Operators Co-operative Service Society Ltd., and Another, reported in AIR 1981 Cal. 393 where the selfsame body namely, Indian Bank Association which is figuring as defendant opposite party No. 1 herein was not regarded as a juristic entity as not being registered under any of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the suit as framed has been held to be non-maintainable.;