1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya CO 225 of 2026 Dinesh Poddar Vs. Suman Singh and Anr. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arijit Bardhan Mr. Gourab Mondal Delivered On : 29.09.2026 Supratim Bhattacharya, J.: 1. The backdrop of the lis is that the petitioner/plaintiff namely Dinesh Poddar is a tenant under the opposite party No.1 / landlord namely Suman Singh in respect of the suit property that is a shop room measuring 65 sq. ft. (approx) in the northern portion of the ground floor of the building situated in RS plot No. 122 /3109, RS Khatian No. 219 having the holding No. 35 G.T. Road (East ) within Asansol Municipal Corporation Ward No. 20. 2. The said petitioner sought for declaration in respect of the tenancy and filed a Title Suit being No. 224 of 2013. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid title suit the petitioner has been dispossessed by the landlord namely Suman Singh and one Achewar 2 Nath Shukla who is said to have entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property. 4. Being dispossessed the petitioner filed another title suit being Title Suit No. 105 of 2015 against the landlord Suman Singh and the intending purchaser namely Achewar Nath Shukla seeking recovery of possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 5. Thereafter the said Achewar Nath Shukla filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Code’) praying for impleading himself as a party in the Title Suit No. 224 of 2013. 6. The Ld. Trial Judge after hearing the Ld. Counsels representing the plaintiff and the applicant, considered and allowed the said application. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order No. 147 dated 14.11.2025 passed in Title Suit No..224 of 2013 the present petitioner tenant has preferred the present civil revisional application impleading the landlord Suman Singh as opposite party No.1 and Achewar Nath Shukla as proposed defendant / opposite party No.2 . 8. Affidavit of service has been filed. 9. The Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has been served but in respect of the opposite party No. 1 the envelope has returned with the endorsement “No such person in the address”. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the presence of the opposite party No.1 is not required. 3 10. As in spite of service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 the opposite party No.2 has not entered appearance and none is representing the opposite party No.2 so the matter is taken up ex parte against the opposite party No.2. 11. Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner had initially filed a suit being Title Suit No. 224 of 2013, seeking declaration of tenancy right in respect of the suit property and during the pendency of the aforesaid suit the petitioner has been dispossessed from the suit property, as such the petitioner has been compelled to file another suit being Title Suit No. 105 of 2015, seeking recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. 12. He has further submitted that being ousted by the opposite parties the petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of possession against both the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. 13. He has further submitted that the opposite party No.2 on the basis of an unregistered and unstamped agreement with the opposite party No.1 has prayed for being impleaded in the suit seeking declaration of tenancy filed by the petitioner in the year 2013. He has further submitted that in the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the opposite party No.2 has stated that having come to know as regards to the pendency of the title suit seeking declaration of tenancy in the year 2024 the opposite party No.2 has sought for impleading himself as a party in the array of defendants 4 in the suit of the year 2013 through which the petitioner plaintiff has sought for declaration as regards to the tenancy right in respect of the suit property. 14. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that on the basis of an unregistered and unstamped agreement the opposite party No. 2 could not have prayed for impleading himself as a party in the suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration as regards to tenancy in respect of the suit property. He has further submitted that Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act do not support an unregistered and unstamped agreement. 15. He has further submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge while allowing the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code has stated that the petitioner is required to be added as defendant in this suit to unearth the real picture before the court and without his impleadment no effective decree can be passed. 16. This petitioner has been aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order whereby the opposite party No.2 has been allowed to be impleaded in the array of defendants in the title suit of the year 2013. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge ought not to have been passed in utter violation of the laws prevalent. 17. In such circumstance, the Ld. Counsel has sought for setting aside of the impugned order being No. 147 dated 14.11.2024 passed by 5 the Ld. Trial Judge in the title suit No. 224 of 2013 and thereby allowing the present civil revisional application. 18. Heard the Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the agreement on the basis of which the opposite party No.2 that is Achewar Nath Shukla has prayed for impleading himself as a party in the suit for declaration of tenancy is an unregistered and unstamped agreement. 19. In this regard let Section 35 of the Stamp Act be placed which lays down as follows: “35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. - No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:Provided that(a)any such instrument [shall] [Substituted by Act 21 of 2006, Section 69, for "not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions," .] be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together 6 with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;(b)where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it;(c)where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;(d)nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)] [ Now see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).];(e)nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act” Section 17 (1-A) of the Registration Act lays down as follows: 7 “[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.] [” 20. From the aforementioned Sections it transpires that an agreement for sale on which the opposite party No.2 has relied upon, being an unregistered and unstamped agreement it shall have no effect for the purposes of section 53-A. 21. Apart from the above a mere agreement for sale does no entitle a person any right in respect of the property in relation to which the agreement has been sought for as such the said opposite party No.2 has not obtained any right in respect of the suit property. 22. So allowing the said opposite party No.2 to be impleaded as a party in the array of defendant in a suit seeking declaration of tenancy is not in accordance with law as such the impugned order whereby the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the said Code is considered and allowed is set aside. 23. The present civil revisional application being No. CO 225 of 2026 is allowed. 8 24. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court. 25. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)