JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is directed against Order no. . 5 4 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 327 of 19x3. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this court. 2. BY the impugned order the learned Judge has allowed the application for addition of party made on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 and 2. The aforesaid Title Suit had been filed by the present petitioner, inter alia, for a declaration that he is entitled to the allotment of a plot by opposite party no. 3 Calcutta Improvement Trust, for permanent injunction restraining the Calcutta Improvement Trust from making the said allotment in favour of anyone other than the petitioner. In the said suit, the opposite parties 1 and 2 had applied for being added as parties, inter alia, alleging in the application for addition, that the plain tiff/petitioner had already received from the applicants a substantial amount on diverse dates agreeing to transfer the plot which was to be allotted by the Calcutta improvement Trust to him and that the petitioner had authorised the applicants to receive further communications by the C. I. T. which would be binding on the plaintiff and the fact that in a writ proceeding instituted by the plaintiff before this court the applicants/opposite parties, inter alia, were permitted to be added as respondents with liberty to the C. I. T. to settle the disputed plot with any person including the added respondents, which even on appall before the Division Bench was not substantially altered or modified. The said applicants had disclosed along with his application for addition, the agreement between them and the plaintiff-petitioner. 3. MR. Manna, appearing in support of the application, has contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the tests laid down judicially for allowing application for addition of party in a suit. According to Mr. Manna, the applications have no direct interest in the suit property but their interest is contingent on the success of the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit. At best, the said applicants' can sue the plaintiff/petitioner for a specific performance of the agreement between them and the plaintiff-petitioner, or for damages but as far as the instant Title Suit is concerned the adjudication thereof does not depend on their presence or absence. In support of his submissions, Mr. At best, the said applicants' can sue the plaintiff/petitioner for a specific performance of the agreement between them and the plaintiff-petitioner, or for damages but as far as the instant Title Suit is concerned the adjudication thereof does not depend on their presence or absence. In support of his submissions, Mr. Manna has relied on the decisions reported in (Manmohan Singh v. Satnarian) AIR 1971 Punjab and Harayana 400 (Moham-madbhai Sk. Mohsinbhay v. Trustees, C. I. T.) AIR 1984 Cal. 219 and an unreported decision of Hazari, 3. dated 2. 9. 87 in the case of Ramanand v. Jaideb. 4. MR. Subrata Roy, however, appearing on behalf of the oposite parties nos. 1 and 2, has contended that a prayer for being added as a party should be allowed even when such a party is a proper party, though not a necessary party. His client is vitally interested in the Title Suit for the purpose of protection of his own interest. The mature of reliefs asked for in the suit, particularly, the relief by way of permanent injunction against the Calcutta improvement Trust, clearly indicates that there is chance of. his client being affected by the decree that may be passed in the suit. According to Mr. Roy, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Mr. Samarjit Gupta, on behalf: of opposite parties 3 to 5 has justified the propriety of the impugned order. 5. UPON consideration of the. materials and the submissions made by the respective learned Advocates, it appears to me that the impugned order does not call for any interference. No doubt the presence or absence of opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 would not, in any way affect the adjudication of the dispute involved in the title suit, but at the same time the results of such adjudication will have an direct bearing on their interest. It is not a suit for specific performance but one for declaration and permanent injunction. On the allegations as made and the documents disclosed, the plaintiff-petitioner has assumed the liability to transfer the plot on the same being allotted to him to the opposite party no, 3 and has accepted the financial benefits therefor already. It is not a suit for specific performance but one for declaration and permanent injunction. On the allegations as made and the documents disclosed, the plaintiff-petitioner has assumed the liability to transfer the plot on the same being allotted to him to the opposite party no, 3 and has accepted the financial benefits therefor already. In such context and upon consideration of the order passed in the writ proceeding, as mentioned above, the opposite parties, at least, have equitable interest - an interest which law recognises - in the property in dispute, and the results of the litigation between the plaintiff-petitioner and the Calcutta Improvement Trust, opposite party no. 3, must have some bearing on such interest. That he is a proper party is undeniable and such being the position, the impugned order which has allowed the application for addition cannot be said to be suffering from jurisdictional infirmity. The exercise of the discretion by the learned munsif not having been arbitrarily or perversely made such order does not call for any interference in Revision. The decisions cited by Mr. Manna are distinguishable on facts as the suits were in those cases all for specific performance only and the plaintiffs were the vendors and the conflicting interests were of two different vendors. 6. IN the result, the Revisional application fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of this order, as made by Mr. Manna on behalf of the petitioner, is refused. Application dismissed.