S. K. HAZARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under O. 7, R. 11 of the Civil P. C. filed by the defendant No. 2, inter alia, praying for an order that the suit be dismissed against the defendant No. 2 and for other reliefs. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the defendant No. 3 refers to paragraph 3 of the plaint which is as follows :" The defendant No. 2 at all material times acted as the Steamer Agent of the defendant No. 1 in Calcutta and looked after the interest of the defendant No. 1, inter alia, in the matter of booking of freight and on going ship Chandlers etc. at the Port of Calcutta in respect of the Vessels under the ownership and/or Charter of the defendant No. 1. "mr. Mitra in paragraph 18 refers as follows :"the plaintiff states that the defendant No. 2 has been made a party herein so that the issues involved herein may be adjudicated in its presence and no relief is claimed as against the defendant No. 2. "it is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the plaintiff in the suit has not claimed any relief against the defendant No. 2 and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant No. 2. Mr. Mitra refers to the provision of O. 7, Rr. 11 (a) and (d) of the Civil P. C. and Mr. Mitra submits that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. ( 2 ) MR. Mitra learned advocate on behalf of the defendant No. 2 refers to the provisions of O. 1, R. 3 of the Civil P. C. which is as follows : 1. All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where- (A) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative: and (B) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Mr. Mr. Mitra submits that since the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 2 cannot be joined as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The provisions of O. 1, R. 3 of the Civil P. C. is exhaustive and no person can be joined as a defendant unless he comes within the provisions of O. 1, R. 3 of the Civil P. C. which is exhaustive. Mr. Mitra relied upon a reported decision of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1976 Cal 467 , Union of India v. Chinoy Chablani and Co. ( 3 ) ORDER 1, Rule 3 of the Civil P. C. prescribes who should be joined as defendants in a suit. O. 1, R. 5 of the Civil P. C. prescribes that it shall not be necessary that every defendant shall be interested as to all the reliefs claimed in the suit against him. There are two categories of defendants: (i) a necessary party, and (2) a proper party. A necessary party is a person who has any interest in the subject-matter involved in the suit and who could be affected by the decision. A party should be considered to be a necessary party if these two conditions are fulfilled : (A) There must be a right to some relief against the party not joined, i. e. no decree can be passed without affecting the rights of the absentee party. (B) The presence of the absentee party should be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Although a party may not be a necessary party to a suit, he might be a proper party. In the decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 761 , Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, it was held by M. Hidayatullah, C. J. , A. N. Ray and I. D. Dua, JJ. that a person may not be a necessary party but may be a proper party. If that party appears before the Court, the Court would know from him all relevant facts and also documents which are required for proper adjudication of the subject-matter of the suit. Though a party is not a necessary party yet he might be a party for the sake of convenience of justice. If that party appears before the Court, the Court would know from him all relevant facts and also documents which are required for proper adjudication of the subject-matter of the suit. Though a party is not a necessary party yet he might be a party for the sake of convenience of justice. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the defendant No. 2 have not yet filed any written statement. The plaintiffs have made it clear in the plaint that the plaintiffs do not claim any relief against the defendant No. 2 but the presence of the defendant No. 2 is required for effectually deciding the dispute in the suit. A party's presence may be necessary for various reasons. It is not always necessary that a party should be made a defendant only against whom any relief is sought for or claimed by the plaintiff. In the instant case, the defendant No. 2 has been described as a defendant but in fact, the defendant No. 2 is a pro forma defendant against whom no relief is claimed and is really not a defendant. There is no provision in the Civil P. C. about the pro forma defendant but in practice, the parties are required to be present in a suit for proper adjudication of the subject-matter of the suit. Though no relief may be claimed against such party and such party would be a proper party and may not be a necessary party. Unless the defendant files his written statement, it is too early to consider whether the defendant would be a proper party in the suit or not and whether by joining the defendant No. 2 as one of the defendants, the plaintiff has acted maliciously or with the sole object of harassing the defendant No. 2. Whether the defendant No. 2 would be a proper party or not, can only be decided after the defendant files his written statement. 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 proceedings. ( 5 ) NONE appears for the plaintiff to oppose the prayer of the defendant No. 2. 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 proceedings. ( 5 ) NONE appears for the plaintiff to oppose the prayer of the defendant No. 2. In this suit, the plaintiff has made the defendant as a party with the averment in paragraph 18 of the plaint that the defendant No. 2 has been made a party so that the suit may be heard in presence of the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff claimed no relief against the defendant No. 2. The provisions of O. I. R. 3 of the Civil P. C. are exhaustive. A party may be made a defendant though the party may not fall within the ambit of O. I, R. 3 of the Civil P. C. Where all the plaintiffs are not willing to join themselves as plaintiffs, those plaintiffs who were not willing to join may be made defendants and the rest of the plaintiffs may bring an action and claim relief for and on behalf of the plaintiffs and also for the other party who may be joined as defendant, which is popularly known as pro forma defendants. There were various reasons for which a party may be made defendant in a suit though he is not a necessary party. I have carefully considered the judgment referred by Mr. Mitra and I hold that the said judgment has no application in the present case. Since no relief has been claimed against the defendant No. 2, the question of any cause of action against the defendant No. 2 does not arise and the present application under O. 7, R. 11 of the Civil P. C. is not maintainable at law. The application fails. ( 6 ) THE application is dismissed. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed. 1988