Sl.36 15.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2931 of 2026 Shashi Bhargava -versus- Subrata Banerjee & Ors. Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharyya Mr. Neil Basu Ms. Oindrilla Sarkar Ms. Avidipta Paul ..for the petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan Ms. Monalisha Guho Mr. Kaustav Chatterjee ..for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against an order dated 17th July, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 366 of 2022. By the order impugned the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner stood rejected. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the defendant no.1 was the erstwhile Secretary of the Bengal Taekwondo Association and very recently the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 i.e. the petitioner herein has been elected as the secretary of the said association and for such reason the application 2 for addition of party ought to have been allowed as the petitioner is a necessary party. The learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party herein seriously disputes the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya. She submits that the plaintiff being the dominus litis has a right to choose against whom the plaintiff shall proceed in the suit. She further submits that the present petitioner is not in any manner associated with the said association and for such reason the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party in this suit. In course of hearing of this civil revisional application a copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 366 of 2022 has been filed by Mr. Bhattacharyya, which is taken on record. After going through the reliefs claimed, this Court finds that the plaintiff/opposite party herein prayed for a declaration that the action of the defendant in representing himself as the Secretary of the Bengal Taekwondo Association is illegal and bad in law and permanent injunction restraining him from representing himself as the secretary of office bearer of the said association. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge that the suit has been filed against Anil Bharghava in his personal capacity alleging that he is falsely representing himself as the secretary. 3 To the mind of this Court the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor her presence is necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. That apart, addition of the petitioner would result in enlarging the scope of the instant suit as the dispute whether the petitioner is or is not the Secretary would be in issue. It is well settled that if the addition of party or parties would enlarge the scope of the suit, addition should not be allowed. The learned trial judge was right in not adding the secretary of the association as a defendant in the said suit. Accordingly C.O. 2931 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)