JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. This revisional application was directed against Order No. 41 dated June 22, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dantan Midnapore (West) in Title Suit No. 143 of 2005 on an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the order impugned the learned Judge dismissed the application. 2. In a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of an immovable property, the petitioner herein as applicant applied for adding herself as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff did not contest such application by filing a written objection. In the course of hearing, as noted by the order impugned, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff admitted that, the petitioner was required to be added as a party in the suit. 3. There were two previous suits, the result of which may be material for the purpose of disposal of the present suit. The petitioner herein claimed to have purchased 32.5 decimal in the suit property. The petitioner claimed to be a co-sharer of the suit Plot No. 1064. 4. By the order impugned the learned Judge questioned the claim of the petitioner that she was a co-sharer of Plot No. 1064. 5. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that a party who ought to be joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. 6. The petitioner established prima facie interest in the suit property. The presence of the petitioner in the suit was necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Whether or not the claim of the petitioner as to her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property was of substance would require adjudication. Her claim nonetheless was required to be adjudicated as the decision rendered in the suit may affect her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property.
Whether or not the claim of the petitioner as to her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property was of substance would require adjudication. Her claim nonetheless was required to be adjudicated as the decision rendered in the suit may affect her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. Moreover, in a suit for declaration of title in respect of an immovable property a person claiming to be a co-sharer to such immovable was both a necessary and proper party. 7. The learned Judge was right when criticising the conduct of the petitioner in her failure to state in the petition as to which category she wanted herself to be added as a party to the suit. The petitioner did not specify in her petition whether she wanted to join as the plaintiff or the defendant. 8. However, since the petitioner claimed right as a co-sharer in respect of the suit property and was contesting the claim of the plaintiff, the petitioner be added as a party defendant to the suit for the ends of justice. 9. In such circumstances the order impugned is set aside. The petitioner is added as a defendant in Title Suit No. 143 of 2005. Necessary amendment to the plaint in this regard will be carried out in the records of the Trial Court within such time as granted by the Trial Court. The petitioner as a defendant in the suit will be entitled to file written statement within such time as the Trial Court may grant. 10. The revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocate for the parties in compliance of necessary formalities.