Item- 25. sg 28-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3368 of 2026 Avijit Bangal Versus Somnath Bag @ Das & Anr. Mr. Soumyadeb Chakraborty …for the petitioners Leave is given to the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner to correct the cause title of this application, here and now. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against an order dated 8th September, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 981 of 2018. By the order impugned, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser from the defendant/opposite party nos.2. He submits that the petitioner being a transferee pendente lite, is a necessary party in the suit and the learned trial judge ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner for addition. After going through the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the petitioner has sought for leave to contest the suit as defendant after expunging the name of the defendant namely, Asto Khan. 2 The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner may be right in submitting that the caption of an application is immaterial and the substance of the application is to be looked into. He further submits that the learned trial judge ought to have treated the application as one under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, this Court finds that the petitioner in the application had sought for expunging the name of the original defendant. The learned trial judge was right in holding that the petitioner could not establish sufficient grounds for exercise of discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to expunge the defendant/opposite party no.2 from the array of the parties in the suit. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This civil revision application stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned trial judge. If such an application is filed, the learned trial judge shall decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties being uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge or by this Court. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not entered into the question as to whether the petitioner has 3 demonstrated his right to be impleaded as a party in the said suit. All points are left open to be decided by the learned trial judge at the time of hearing of the application, if any, filed by the petitioner pursuant to this liberty. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)