{"id":311102,"date":"2024-01-10T11:00:23","date_gmt":"2024-01-10T05:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=311102"},"modified":"2024-01-12T12:22:24","modified_gmt":"2024-01-12T06:52:24","slug":"cal-hc-allows-revision-application-for-addition-of-parties-scc-blog-legal-research-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/10\/cal-hc-allows-revision-application-for-addition-of-parties-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court allows revision application for addition of parties; remits for reconsideration pending special officer\u2019s report"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In a three separate revisional applications challenging the order of rejection of the applicant-petitioner’s application for addition of parties, a single-judge bench comprising of Biswaroop Chowdhury,* J.<\/span>, found that the trial court failed to consider the petitioner’s contentions and documents filed in support of their application. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration upon receipt of the special officer’s report.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

The instant revisional applications arise from the rejection of the applicant-petitioner’s prayer for addition of parties in suit by the Civil Judge Senior Division, vide order dated 05-05-2022. The applicant challenged the impugned order contending that their inclusion as parties is crucial for proper adjudication.<\/p>\n

The opposite party 1-plaintiff initiated the suit against the sole defendant-opposite party 2, seeking eviction for property sale. The allegations include the plaintiff attempting to sell the property and demanding eviction of all tenants. The applicant claimed occupancy but was not acknowledged by the plaintiff, who falsely asserted the sole defendant’s exclusive occupancy. The applicant argued that their inclusion is essential for a fair adjudication. The lower Court rejected the addition of parties, stating the plaintiff’s lack of objections, and the absence of allegations against the applicants.<\/p>\n

Parties’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The applicant challenged the rejection, asserting the trial court’s failure to consider their documents and the potential prejudice to their rights. It was contended that the applicant’s right to be added as a party is essential for proper adjudication.<\/p>\n

The opposite party contended that no relief was sought against the appellant, therefore justifying their exclusion. It was contended that the appellant’s independent rights can be addressed post-decree.<\/p>\n

Legal Precedents<\/p>\n

Kanak Lata Das<\/span> v. Naba Kumar Das<\/span>, (2018) 2 SCC 352<\/a><\/p>\n