M/L- 1690 30/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 1683 of 2025 Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Singh & Anr. With CAN 1 of 2025 Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra Ms. Gargi Acharyya Mr. Rohan Sharma ….for the petitioner Mr. Tapas Kr. Roy Mr. Mritunjay Saha ….for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated March 11, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 5th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.126 of 2018. By the order impugned the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the opposite party no.2 stood allowed. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for eviction against the opposite party no.1 on the grounds as contemplated under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In such a suit the opposite party no.2 applied for being added and has been ultimately added by the impugned order. He further submits that in the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the opposite party no.2 has not specified the manner of right, title and interest of the opposite party no.2 in respect of the premises in question. He submits that the opposite party 2 no.2 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit for eviction. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is in possession of the suit property. The suit property belongs to the opposite party no.2. He further submits that Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to add a party whose presence is necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. He submits that since the learned trial judge have added the opposite party as a party defendant in the instant suit, this Court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the plaint of Ejectment Suit No.126 of 2018, this Court finds that the suit has been filed on the grounds contained in Section 6 of the 1997 act. The foundation of such a suit is the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. It is not the case of the opposite party no.2 that there is existence of landlord tenant relationship between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2. That apart, the petitioners being the plaintiffs are dominus litis and have a right to chose against whom they want to proceed against. After going through the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure this Court finds that such application is silent as to the manner of right, title and 3 interest of the applicants in respect of the property in question. It appears to this Court that the opposite party no.2 is claiming an adverse interest against the plaintiffs. This Court is of the considered view that addition of the opposite party in a simpliciter suit for eviction of a tenant would convert the eviction suit into suit for title, which is not permissible. It is well-settled that a party cannot be added in a suit if such addition would ultimately result in enlarging the scope of the suit. To the mind of this Court the addition of the opposite party no.2 would enlarge the scope of the eviction suit which is not permissible. The learned trial judge applied wrong test for adding the opposite party no.2 in a simpliciter suit for eviction of a tenant. For such reason this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The learned trial judge is directed to take consequential steps in terms of this order and thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions CO 1683 of 2025 stands allowed and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 also stands disposed of. At this stage, the leaned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the hearing of the suit be expedited. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 5th Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas is requested to dispose of the 4 Ejectement Suit No.126 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)