JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. Order impugned dated 6th May, 2015 passed by the 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1612 of 2008 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner made in application for addition of party under order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties being the plaintiffs filed an eviction suit against opposite party no.2, the tenant, in respect of garage situated and lying on the ground floor at premises no. 46/1A, S. N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata – 14 with a prayer for eviction of O.P. No.2 and delivery of possession. 3. He submits that the mother of the petitioner, Mr. . Maya Rani Laha, being a co-sharer of the property was made party as proforma defendant no.2 in the aforesaid suit by the plaintiff/O.P. No.1. He submits that the mother of the petitioner being the proforma defendant no.2 in the suit was served with summons but she did not appear. However, petitioner's mother died on 6th August, 2012 and the petitioner being the successor of the proforma defendant no.2/Late Maya Rani Laha moved an application on 30th March, 2015 for being added as party to the suit. He submits, although plaintiff has claimed that the opposite party no.2 was inducted by him as tenant but the opposite party no.2 in his written statement stated that he was inducted as a tenant by the mother of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings and that was why petitioner moved this revisional application on 30th March, 2015. He submits that the petitioner was carrying on business from that garage space and, therefore, plaintiff/petitioner is a necessary and proper party to contest the suit. He submits that in case a decree of eviction is passed, in that event, the petitioner would be prejudiced and he would be without his business. 4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner's mother was admittedly a cosharer and she was made proforma defendant no.2 in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner should be added as a party to this proceeding. He submits that in case a decree of eviction is passed, in that event, the petitioner would be prejudiced and he would be without his business. 4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner's mother was admittedly a cosharer and she was made proforma defendant no.2 in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner should be added as a party to this proceeding. He submits that by an order dated 20th November, 2013, the learned Court below recorded death intimation in respect of proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha since deceased and recorded an order for taking steps regarding substitution. He then submits that by a subsequent order dated 26th November, 2014 learned Court on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for expunging the name of the proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha passed an order for expunging the name of Maya Rani Laha. 5. He submits that the learned Court below disposed of that application holding that Maya Rani Laha expired and for proper adjudication of the case legal heirs of Maya Rani Laha was not required to be made parties since no relief had been sought for against Maya Rani Laha. Therefore, name of proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha (since deceased) could be expunged from the cause title of the plaint. 6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in view of the provisions under Order I Rule 10(2), the Court has power to add suo motu a party to the proceedings but in the instant case, the petitioner sought to be added as party since he would be seriously prejudiced in case an eviction decree is passed against the tenant. 7. He submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the scope of the application filed by the petitioner disclosing the facts and also failed to take note of the fact that the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. He submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the aforesaid suit and he only came to learn from the learned advocate conducting the suit. He submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the case made out by the petitioner and ultimately held that the petitioner's mother failed to appear and contest the suit and, therefore, her name was expunged. He submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the case made out by the petitioner and ultimately held that the petitioner's mother failed to appear and contest the suit and, therefore, her name was expunged. The plaintiff and the petitioner have common interest and if the suit succeeds then both of them will be benefited because the suit premises is a joint property. He submits that the learned Court below have erroneously held that there is no space in the suit to adjudicate the title of the parties. The relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant is required to be explored in this suit. The defendant has claimed that he a tenant under the predecessor of the present petitioner. This is a matter of claim which the defendant has to prove of his own by way of adducing evidence but in order to prove the same presence of this petitioner in the suit is not necessary. Learned Court below also erroneously came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had the right to proceed with the suit as per his own choice and he had the burden to prove his assertion before the Court. The plaintiff cannot be forced to carry any party against whom he had not claimed any relief. He submits that the finding of the Court to the effect that if the petitioner is added as party to this proceeding, it would make the suit more complicated, unwarranted and not correct. 8. He then cited several decisions in support of his submissions which are as follows: (1) AIR 1994 Calcutta 191 [Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumkum Mittal & Ors], paragraph 35. (2) (2004) 8 SCC 706 [Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through Lrs. & Ors.], paragraph 26. (3) AIR 1980 Allahabad 334 [Girja Shanker Singh & Ors. v. Ram Singh & Ors.], paragraph 8. (4) (1999) 2 SCC 577 [Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors.], paragraphs 9 to 11. (5) (1995) 2 SCC 326 [U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by Lrs. & Ors.] paragraphs 21 to 36. (6) (2014) 3 WBLR (Cal) 885 [Sri Kaushik Ghosh v. Smt. Reba Das & Anr.]. 9. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in view of the ratio of the aforementioned decisions the petitioner's presence is necessary. (5) (1995) 2 SCC 326 [U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by Lrs. & Ors.] paragraphs 21 to 36. (6) (2014) 3 WBLR (Cal) 885 [Sri Kaushik Ghosh v. Smt. Reba Das & Anr.]. 9. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in view of the ratio of the aforementioned decisions the petitioner's presence is necessary. He submits that learned Court below ought to have considered whether the right of a party would be affected if he is not added as party. He submits that there is no determination in this regard. He, however, submits that the learned Court below ought to have taken note of the fact that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party and, therefore, he ought to have been impleaded as party in that proceeding. 10. In spite of service of notice nobody appears on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party no.1. the defendant/opposite party no.2 is represented by his learned Counsel, Mr. Ashis Kumar Ray. 11. Mr. Ray submits that presence of the plaintiff/petitioner is not at all necessary. He submits that Maya Rani Laha was served with notice. However, she did not contest the suit. She remained silent. He also submits that death of Maya Rani Laha took place on 6th August, 2012 whereas application for addition of party was moved on 30th March, 2015 after about three years. He submitted that there was no explanation whatsoever. The plea of the illness as pleaded by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner is without any basis and of no substance. There is nothing on record to show that the mother of the petitioner was ill. No medical prescription whatsoever was produced. Mr. Roy submitted that no prayer was made against the proforma defendant no.2. Proforma defendant no.2 being the mother of the petitioner never took any interest in the proceeding nor she contested the suit. Even the petitioner did not have interest after the death of his mother. He submitted that the eviction suit was filed against his client who is contesting the suit. He submitted that for proper adjudication of the matter presence of the petitioner is not necessary. He also denied that in the same garage the petitioner is carrying on his business. It was further submitted by him that the entire garage is under his client's occupation. He denied the allegations made by the petitioner against his client. 12. He submitted that for proper adjudication of the matter presence of the petitioner is not necessary. He also denied that in the same garage the petitioner is carrying on his business. It was further submitted by him that the entire garage is under his client's occupation. He denied the allegations made by the petitioner against his client. 12. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appearing parties. 13. The plaint was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 against the defendant/opposite party no.2. As per averments made in the plaint, opposite party no.2 was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1. The mother of the petitioner was made proforma defendant no.2 in the plaint. In spite of being served with summons she did not appear in the suit. She did not contest in the suit. She did not show any interest in the suit. She also did not contend before the learned Court below that she had inducted as opposite party no.2. It was a statement by the tenant/opposite party no.2 that he was inducted as tenant by the proforma defendant, Maya Rani Laha. 14. It appears from the prayers made in the plaint that no relief whatsoever claimed against the proforma defendant no.2, Maya Rani Laha. Even after death of Maya Rani Laha on 6th August, 2012, the applicant/petitioner did not take any step. He has only come before this Court on 30th March, 2015 taking a plea that he had no knowledge about the suit. He further pleaded that his mother was ill. But there was no such cogent evidence on record to show that her mother was ill. However mother's illness could be not a ground for not engaging a lawyer but fact remains that no lawyer was engaged. Petitioner's mother could have also taken steps but that was not done. There was nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been carrying on business from that garage space. Moreover, the learned Court below have carefully considered the matter and held that the plaintiff did not claim any relief against the proforma defendant no.2/petitioner's mother and the petitioner's mother failed to appear and contest the suit. Her name was expunged from the suit and that was also not questioned. Moreover, the learned Court below have carefully considered the matter and held that the plaintiff did not claim any relief against the proforma defendant no.2/petitioner's mother and the petitioner's mother failed to appear and contest the suit. Her name was expunged from the suit and that was also not questioned. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 and the applicant/petitioner have common interest and if the suit succeeds then both of them would be benefited since the suit premises is a joint property. 15. Learned Court below very carefully concluded that there was no space in this suit to adjudicate the title of the parties and the relationship of the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 and the applicant/petitioner. It was also found by the learned Court below that no relief was sought for against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. If the decree be passed against the defendant that would not affect this petitioner adversely. Moreover, the presence of the petitioner as party in this proceeding is neither necessary nor proper. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Court below is quoted hereunder: "Perused the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC filed the petitioner Tapas Kumar Laha, the written objection filed by the plaintiff and written objection filed by the defendant and the materials on record. Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Considered. The petitioner by filing this petition has prayed for inclusion of himself as a defendant in this suit in place of his mother proforma defendant Maharani Laha. It reveals from the order sheet that summons were served upon Mayarani Laha but she had not contested the suit by filing written statement. The said Mayarani died and this court vide Order No. 50 dated 26.11.14 expunged the name of Mayarani Laha from the column of defendant. A plain reading of the plaint and the written statement shows that the plaintiff has admitted that Mayarani Laha as a co-owner of the suit property. The defendant is a tenant and the plaintiff has claimed relief against the defendant. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner Maharani Laha has failed to appear and contest the suit. So her name was expunged from this suit. The plaintiff and the petitioner have common interest and if the suit succeeds then both of them will be benefited because the suit premises is a joint property. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner Maharani Laha has failed to appear and contest the suit. So her name was expunged from this suit. The plaintiff and the petitioner have common interest and if the suit succeeds then both of them will be benefited because the suit premises is a joint property. There is no space in this suit to adjudicate the title of the parties. The relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant is required to be explored in this suit. The defendant has claimed that he is a tenant under the predecessor of the present petitioner. This is a matter of claim which the defendant has to prove by his own by way of adducing evidence but in order to prove the same presence of this petitioner in this suit is not necessary. The plaintiff has the right to proceed with his suit as per his own choice and he has the burden of proof to prove his assertion before the court. The plaintiff cannot be forced to carry any party against whom he has not claimed any relief. In this present suit the predecessor of the petitioner Tapas Kumar Laha has not contested by filing written statement or by appearing in this suit. She died and her name was expunged as per the provision of Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC and thereby there is no space for the present petitioner to get entry in this suit as a defendant by his own. The act and omission done by the predecessor-in-interest of this present petitioner is totally binding upon the petitioner and he cannot escape from his liability by taking another course of act in order to get himself in this suit. The record clearly shows that no relief was sought for against the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner. If the decree be passed against the defendant that will not affect this petitioner adversely. The title of this petitioner in this suit is admitted by the plaintiff but the extent of his share can be determined by a competent court where the partition suit is pending between him and the plaintiff. Therefore, I find if the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) be allowed then it will make this suit more complex. The title of this petitioner in this suit is admitted by the plaintiff but the extent of his share can be determined by a competent court where the partition suit is pending between him and the plaintiff. Therefore, I find if the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) be allowed then it will make this suit more complex. The assertion of the defendant regarding his entry in the suit premises can be proved separately by the defendant by adducing evidence but for the reason presence of this petitioner as defendant of this suit is no longer required. Accordingly I find that this petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC dated 30th March, 2015 has got no merit at all. Hence, it is, ORDERED that the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC dated 30.03.15 is considered and rejected." 16. In my considered opinion, the learned Judge was very correct to hold that no relief claimed against the proforma defendant no.2 who has no interest in the suit, who did not contest the suit either. Moreover, if the decree is passed against the opposite party no.2 then both the parties would be benefited. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is carrying out business in the said garage space. On the contrary, it was contended by the tenant/opposite party no.2 that the entire premises is occupied by him. 17. In my considered opinion, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Court below. 18. However, the judgments cited by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner are on different context and this Court is of the view that those are all settled principles of law but the ratio of those judgments are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. Therefore, there is no illegality and/or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below. This revisional application has no merit and, therefore, dismissed.