A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) I had already heard the learned Advocates for the contending parties on the application filed by the applicants, Smt. Ira Basu and two others, for being added as proforma opposite parties in the instant revisional application on my taking up the matter for dictating the orders on the said application and perusing the records of the instant revisional application. I found that the instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 22. 9. 94 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 70 of 1994 before him. While seeking to appreciate the scope of the instant revisional application for disposing of the applicants' aforesaid application I had scrutinised the record for finding out the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order. But on scrutiny of the record it appeared to me that the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order had not been annexed to the instant revisional application. No leave was sought for from the court for filing the same nor, had any leave been granted by the court therefor. The pages 22 and 23 of the revisional application would further indicate that the petitioners had not obtained the certified copy of the impugned order either at the time of filing of the revisional application. A certified copy of the application appears to be on the record. There is nothing on the record to indicate when and how the same was filed. A question therefore arose whether the instant revisional application could at all be entertained when the same was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order nor, any leave was sought for filing the same, neither any leave being granted for by the court for the said purpose. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners as also the plaintiffs-opposite parties had submitted that since the instant revisional application had already been admitted and since the certified copy of the impugned order is presently on record, the instant revisional application may not be rejected on the aforesaid technical ground, to the inconvenience of the parties. In view of the submissions so made and in analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983, Supreme Court 540 I do not feel inclined to reject the revisional application on the aforesaid technical ground. In view of the submissions so made and in analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983, Supreme Court 540 I do not feel inclined to reject the revisional application on the aforesaid technical ground. The revisional application having once been admitted I would, per contra, feel inclined to dispose of the same on merits. Before doing so, let me propose to dispose of the relevant application filed by the applicants for adding them as proforma opposite parties herein for the reasons stated therein. ( 3 ) THE applicants herein, Smt. Ira Basu, Sri Abhijit Basu and Sri Surajit Basu (herein after referred to as applicants), have prayed the court for adding them as proforma opposite parties in the instant Revisional Application for the reasons stated therein, supported by the opposite parties/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, but strongly opposed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as defendants ). ( 4 ) IT is contended by the applicants that the plaintiffs had filed the relevant suit, being T. S. No. 70 of 1994, before the court below praying for certain reliefs on the pleas, taken therein. In the said suit Pijush Kanti Basu had been impleaded by the plaintiffs as proforma defendant No. 4. He (Pijush Kanti) having died on 25. 7. 94, the applicants, being his legal heirs and representatives, had been substituted in his place by an order dated 30. 8. 94 passed by the court below. The said Pijush Kanti Basu had 30. 35 percent share in the company in question. The said shares are to be transmitted in the joint names of the applicants. They are necessary parties in the instant revisional application as such. They would suffer irreparable loss, injury and hardship if they were, not added as proforma opposite parties herein. ( 5 ) AS already indicated above, the applicants relevant application is supported by the plaintiffs/opposite parties, but opposed by the defendants/petitioners. ( 6 ) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for all the contending parties and perusal of the materials on record I find that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the court below praying for certain reliefs against the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the averments/allegations made in the plaint. ( 6 ) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for all the contending parties and perusal of the materials on record I find that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the court below praying for certain reliefs against the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the averments/allegations made in the plaint. True it is, no relief had been claimed against the proforma defendant No. 4, Pijush Kanti Basu, by the plaintiffs; but it would oddly appear from paragraphs 3,7,8,9,10,11,17,18 and 19 of the plaint, xerox copy of which has been made part of the record, that certain serious allegations have been made against him (proforma defendant No. 4) therein. He was indeed entitled to controvert the allegations made against him in the plaint. And, in his absence on his demise, his legal heirs and representatives would indeed be entitle to controvert the allegations made against him. It would further pretty clearly appear from the records that on the plaintiffs' application under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CP Code and on an application filed by the applicants before the court below under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code the court below by Order dated 30. 8. 94 had quite rightly substituted the applicants in place of the deceased proforma defendant No. 4, being his legal heirs and representatives. The said order appears to have been passed on contest, presumably on contest by the defendants/petitioners, since the plaintiffs/opposite parties had themselves sought for their substitution, as stated above. The order dated 30. 8. 94 passed by the court below does not appear to have been challenged by the defendants as yet, and therefore, stands firm, final and absolute. ( 7 ) MEANWHILE, the defendants had filed a petition before the court below under order 7, Rule 11 of the CP Code that was rejected by it by passing the impugned order dated 21. 9. 94, challenged herein by them in this Revisional Application. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased pro-defendant No. 4, substituted and brought on record in the relevant suit, not having been impleaded by the petitioners/defendants herein, the applicants have filed the instant application for adding them as proforma-opposite parties herein, which is being vehemently opposed by the defendants/petitioners. 9. 94, challenged herein by them in this Revisional Application. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased pro-defendant No. 4, substituted and brought on record in the relevant suit, not having been impleaded by the petitioners/defendants herein, the applicants have filed the instant application for adding them as proforma-opposite parties herein, which is being vehemently opposed by the defendants/petitioners. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the defendants-petitioners had referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1977 Orissa 138, AIR 1977 Goa, Daman and Diu 4 and AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1888 in support of their opposition to the relevant application. But the facts in the aforesaid three decisions, on my perusal of the same, do not seem to be applicable to the facts herein. In the first decision defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were impleaded as parties to the relevant suit on their own initiative. The question there was whether the plaintiffs could be directed to claim relief against the said two added defendants. It was held therein that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, and he is the best Judge of his own interest. It should be left to him to choose the opponent against whom he has to claim relief in the suit. If he seeks relief against a particular defendant it is not the lack out of the court whether the relief should be claimed against other persons. The question of claiming relief by the petitioners against the applicants in the instant revisional application does not clearly seem to arise. In the second decision as well it has been held that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, which cannot certainly be disputed. It has been held there that in exercising discretion under order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CP Code the courts should invariable take into account the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as a defendant to his suit. It may be recalled that the applicants are not third persons in the suit having already been impleaded in the relevant suit at the instance of the plaintiff. The second decision does not, therefore, come to the aid of the petitioners. The third decision does neither seem to be relevant, in the facts and circumstances herein. It may be recalled that the applicants are not third persons in the suit having already been impleaded in the relevant suit at the instance of the plaintiff. The second decision does not, therefore, come to the aid of the petitioners. The third decision does neither seem to be relevant, in the facts and circumstances herein. The question in the said case was whether a reference to the Civil Court under section 146 (1), Cr PC, is a Civil Proceedings under section 141 of the CP Code. That is not the case here. A Revisional Proceeding cannot either be deemed to be an Original Proceeding under section 141 of the Code. ( 9 ) UPON hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates for all the contending parties and perusal of the record I find little justification for the petitioners for not impleading the applicants in the instant Revisional Application, who had already been substituted and brought on record by the court below in the suit. The question as to whether the suit should be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, CP Code, as sought for by the defendants, or not should also be heard and considered in their presence. The petitioners/defendants further have admitted in paragraph-14 of the Revisional Application that the proforma defendant No. 4 had filed a suit before this Court and had made interlocutory application and obtained limited interim order which had expired by efflux of time on 30th August, 1994. Some of the reliefs claimed in the said suit are identical to the reliefs claimed in the instant suit before the court below (being T. S. No. 70 of 1994 ). It would further oddly appear from the record an application has also been filed herein by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for removal of the special officer. It has been alleged in paragraphs 10. 11, 12 and 13 thereof that the special officer had taken oppressive measures against the applicants and has also filed criminal case under section 107 of the Cr PC against them. That being so, the instant revisional application, in all fairness, should be heard in the presence of the applicants. It has been alleged in paragraphs 10. 11, 12 and 13 thereof that the special officer had taken oppressive measures against the applicants and has also filed criminal case under section 107 of the Cr PC against them. That being so, the instant revisional application, in all fairness, should be heard in the presence of the applicants. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 786 in this context where it has been observed that the question as to who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding is well-settled. 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. And, for the reasons already indicated above. It seems to me that the applicants herein are not only proper, but also necessary parties herein, in the facts and circumstances indicated above. ( 10 ) IN the premises above, the application filed by the applicants be allowed without any order as to cost. Let them be added as proforma opposite parties in the instant revisional Application. Let the cause title of the instant Revision Application be accordingly amended. The petitioners are directed to serve copy of the Revisional Application and the annexure enclosed therewith upon them within one week after the ensuing X-Mas vacation. ( 11 ) THE application by the applicants for being added as proforma opposite parties herein having thus been disposed of, let the other application filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 for removal of the special officer be listed for hearing as application. Application allowed .