JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. The O.P. No. 1 instituted a suit being Title Suit No 1932/09 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore, challenging an order of suspension said to have been passed in the Minutes of the Membership Committee Meeting on 19th March, 2009. An application was taken out for temporary injunction against the defendants by the plaintiff and the said application was fixed for hearing on 17th April, 2009 and it was adjourned to 24th April, 2009. On 24th April, 2009 the parties to the suit were present for the purpose of hearing of the injunction application and the present petitioner who is said to be a member of the membership committee filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC praying for being added as a party defendant to the suit. The learned Trial Court fixed 20th May, 2009 for passing necessary orders regarding injunction application and also for hearing of the petition of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. 2. Now an application was taken out by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court praying for preponing the date of hearing on 15th May, 2009. 3. In the background as above, the petitioner ventilates his grievance against the learned Trial Court's order dated 24th April, 2009 that if the injunction application is heard first and disposed of and then his application is taken up for hearing wherein he prayed for being added as a party, then he suffers prejudice because in case his application for addition of party is allowed by the learned Trial Court he would have a right to participate in the injunction application. As such, the learned Trial Court was not justified in proposing the hearing the injunction application first and then proceed to hear the application for the petitioner for addition of party. 4. Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits that since club is a registered society and the suit has been instituted against he club as also the Secretary and the President of the said club the present petitioner cannot have any grievance to ventilate before the learned Trial Court apart from anything that may be submitted on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 5. 1, 2 and 3. 5. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner has been filed with an objective of having the injunction application delayed to the detriment of the interest of the plaintiff who has been facing an order of suspension which was unjustly passed by the membership committee of the club. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of his submission relied on the decisions as Gram Panchayat, Barmer vs. Firm Marudhar Stone Industries & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 214, and Mohan Bagan Athletic Club vs. Deba Prasad Mukherjee, reported in AIR 2003 Cal 298 . 7. Upon hearing at length, the learned Counsel for the parties I pass the following orders:- The learned Trial Court will hear the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC tomorrow the 16th May, 2009 first and then after hearing and disposal of that petition the Court will proceed with the hearing of the injunction application irrespective of the result of the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. In no circumstance, the hearing of the injunction application shall be adjourned for hearing tomorrow. 8. Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate for the plaintiff will make over to Mr. Bhattacharya a copy of the plaint and a copy of the injunction application and such service is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties to the litigation and in the matter of addition of party. In case the petitioner's petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is allowed by the learned Trial Court, Mr. Bhattacharya may file affidavit in opposition if so advised, on that day itself. 9. Application is disposed of. 10. A xerox plain copy of the order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Advocate for the parties immediately. P.S. Datta, J.: Appeal disposed of.