Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.22 dated March 23, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.11 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The plaintiff is the petitioner of this revisional application. He instituted a suit being Title Suit No.154 of 2003 (subsequently re-numbered Title Suit No.11 of 2005) praying for a decree for recovery of possession of the premises in suit and other reliefs. The defendant / opposite party is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement with a counter-claim. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. praying, inter alia, for addition of one Sunil alias Sushil Ranjan Biswas as proforma defendant in the said title suit. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in rejecting the application for addition of party. The plaintiff has not sought for any relief against Sunil alias Sushil Ranjan Biswas. But he wants to make him as proforma defendant on the ground that the defendant has claimed that he took money of Rs.1,40,000/-from his uncle in order to pay the consideration money in respect of the portion of the premises in suit and as such, the suit shall be heard in his presence. This is a pure dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant and the question of law is involved in the matter. Mr. Sunil alias Sushil Ranjan Biswas is not at all required to be added as parties for proper adjudication of the disputes involved between the parties to the suit. The plaintiff has not shown any cause of action at all against the said Sunil alias Sushil Ranjan Biswas in the plaint. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for addition of party. This application is, therefore, totally devoid of merits and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. So, the impugned order should be sustained. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.