- (1.) HEARD the parties. It appears that in respect of the suit property defendants ' name was mutated in the revenue records by the Revenue Authority on 9.10.1992 vide Mutation case No. 29 (III) Dhanbad of 1982 -83. Thereafter Title Suit No. 113 of 1993 was filed and in paragraph 18 of the plaint the plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid mutation order to be illegal. Defendants in their written statement, inter alia, stated in paragraph 6 that the suit cannot proceed in absence of the State Government 'sofficials,namely, Land Reforms Deputy Collector,Sub -divisional Officer and Additional Collector. On 12.6.1995, the defendants filed a petition in the suit for adding the State Government and its officials as party -defendants, which was rejected on 11.9.1995. The suit was thereafter decreed and the defendants have preferred Title Appeal No. 39 of 1997 against the said decree, which is pending. In the appeal defendants -appellants filed petition for admitting the aforesaid mutation order dated 9.10.1992 as additional evidence, which was rejected. They preferred C.R. No. 257 of 2000 (R) against the said order in this Court, which was allowed on 24.11.2000 with the following observations : "The petitioner is permitted to place on record duly certified copies of order passed in Mutation Case No. 29(3) Dhanbad of 1982 -83 by Circle Officer, Dhanbad. The production of this document, however, is subject to it being relevant to the points in issue between the parties. The relevant question, therefore, is left open." It is said that thereafter the mutation order was admitted as additional evidence and was marked exhibit in the appeal. Thereafter again the defendants -appellants filed a petition to add Revenue authority, Dhanbad, who had passed the said order of mutation dated 9.10.1992 as party - respondent to the appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9.4.2003.
(2.) THERE is dispute of title between the parties over the suit land. No doubt in the plaint it was stated that mutation order dated 9.10.1992 was illegal and that emboldened thereby the defendants started claiming title over the suit land, but on that account the Revenue Authority, who had passed the order of mutation cannot be said to be either necessary or proper party in the present lis. The apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others [(1992) 2 SCC 524] observed that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. In my view, for the purpose of adjudication as to whether the mutation order in question in favour of defendants was legal and justified, presence of the Revenue Authority in the suit/ appeal is not at all necessary. The said Revenue Officer (Circle Officer) is also not required to defend the order passed by him on 9.10.1992 in the mutation matter. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved : that would only make him a necessary witness. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is to that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled. And such question cannot be effectively and completely settled, unless he is a party. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Revision application is dismissed. ;