24.08.2026 Sl.No.126 Ct.No. 655 pp C.O. 4553 of 2025 Bappa Halder Vs. Mongal Halder @ Billamongal Halder & Ors. Mr. Lutful Haque, Mr. Sanat Kumar Das, Ms. Tharima Khatun ….for the petitioner. 1. This civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with T.S. No.84 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the present opposite parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and they were impleaded as party-defendants in the suit. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the present opposite parties filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for their impleadment as defendants. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the said application, allowed 2 the same by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 and directed that the applicants be added as party-defendants in the suit. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the opposite parties have no manner of right, title, interest or lawful claim in respect of the suit property. According to him, in the absence of any subsisting interest in the subject matter of the suit, their presence is neither necessary nor proper for adjudication of the dispute between the existing parties. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in directing their impleadment as defendants. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and have carefully perused the impugned order as well as the materials available on record. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the applicants before the learned Trial Court claimed to have shares and interest in the suit property and asserted that they had acquired such interest by virtue of registered deeds. The learned Trial Court, upon considering the 3 nature of such claim, came to the conclusion that the presence of the applicants would be necessary and/or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit and, accordingly, allowed their application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to determine the correctness or otherwise of the claim of title or share raised by the newly impleaded defendants. The question as to whether the registered deeds relied upon by them confer any right, title or interest upon them, and whether such claim can ultimately be sustained, are matters which can appropriately be considered by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence to be adduced by the respective parties. 7. It is also significant that the suit is one for permanent injunction concerning the suit property. If a person asserts an independent interest in the property and claims that such interest has been acquired through registered instruments, his presence may assist the Court in effectively and completely adjudicating the dispute and in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The mere fact that 4 the plaintiff disputes such claim does not, at the stage of impleadment, necessarily render the presence of such persons impermissible. 8. Moreover, the impleadment of the opposite parties does not, by itself, amount to an adjudication or recognition of their alleged title or share in the suit property. Their claim remains open to adjudication in the suit. The plaintiff/petitioner will have full opportunity to contest the claim of the newly added defendants, to challenge the validity and effect of the alleged registered deeds and to place all relevant materials before the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. 9. In such circumstances, I find that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure upon consideration of the claim made by the applicants and the necessity of their presence for effective adjudication of the dispute. No jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. 5 11. The instant civil revisional application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the question of impleadment and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of their respective claims. The learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the claim of the newly impleaded defendants, including their alleged right, title and share in the suit property, independently and in accordance with law, upon consideration of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)