Judgment Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. Pursuant to leave granted on 22nd November, 1989 further service has been attempted to be made on opposite parties No. 1 and 3 to 10. Earlier the opposite party No.2 had accepted service on behalf of himself and opposite parties No. 1 and 3 to 10. 2. Opposite party No. 11 who is really the aggrieved party or, who might be really the aggrieved party if this revisional application succeeds, has not appeared today through Counsel though an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No. 11 has bees affirmed and opposite party No. 11 appeared before the court also on 22nd November, 1989. 3. Thus the matter goes ex parte. 4. The revisional application is directed against order No. 77 dated 10th September, 1985 passed by the learned Munsif Harun Al Rashid in Title Suit No. 192 of 1982, the said learned Munsif being the Second Additional Munsif at Diamond Harbour. 5. By the said impugned order the learned Munsif permitted an application of opposite party No. 11, added her as a party to the suit and that order is under challenge. 6. The opposite party No. 11 wanted to be added as a defendant in a suit which was filed by the revisional applicant as a plaintiff against the first ten opposite parties impleading them as tenants. 7. I find from order No.1 Rule 10 that an addition of party as a defendant might be allowed either if that party ought to have been joined or if the court would be enabled by the presence of that added party effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. I do not see how the presence of a third party who claims paramount title to the property in suit can at all be either proper or necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved before the court in a landlord's suit against his tenants. Indeed in a landlord-tenant suit the question of title is kept out perforce by he rule of estoppel that operates against the tenants, not permitting them to deny the title of the landlord, if they admit that they are tenants of the landlord. Indeed in a landlord-tenant suit the question of title is kept out perforce by he rule of estoppel that operates against the tenants, not permitting them to deny the title of the landlord, if they admit that they are tenants of the landlord. The question of denial of tenancy and setting up of paramount title by denying the landlord-tenant relationship altogether is a matter as between the landlord who alleges tenancy and, may be the tenant who denies tenancy. A third party's paramount title would be rather in element which could disturb the issues involved in a landlord-tenant suit than in any manner aid them. Thus there could be no ground for addition of the opposite party No. 11 as a defendant. In case the opposite party No. 11 is permitted to be added as a defendant, the scope of the suit could be vestly increased because today a defendant, originally made a defendant or added as a defendant, could, under the provisions of order 8 Rule 6(A) and the subsequent provisions present a counter-claim claiming all reliefs as if in a cross suit of his own. The result of the addition of opposite party No. 11 would thus in effect magnify the suit beyond all its original proportions and thus raise new issues which could not in any manner be necessary for adjudication of the original issues raised. The impugned order, therefore, with respect, does not apply the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 to the facts of the facts of the instant case but proceeds on an illegal and irregular view of the matter. 8. The impugned order is thus set aside. The name of the opposite party No. 11 if already on the record of the suit shall be stuck out. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Let records and a copy of the order go down to the lower court forthwith. Let copies of the acknowledgement cards and unopened envelopes produced before me today regarding further service on opposite parties No.1 and 3 to 10 be kept on record. Application allowed.