Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashThis application is at the instance of the applicant and is directed against the order No. 50 dated January 25, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 50 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC filed by the applicant.
2. The short fact is that the Plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 50 of 2007 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the Defendants / opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah. The Defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations raised in the plaint. Thereafter, the applicant being a registered Association of apartment owners filed an application for addition of party in the said suit and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the Plaintiff / opposite party herein has filed the suit praying for the following reliefs:
To declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of all that seven rooms (two rooms on the ground floor, one room on the first floor, one room on the 2nd floor, one room on the 3rd floor, one mezzanine room on and above the 3rd Floor and one room on the roof top) and all that two flats one situated on the ground floor and other situated at the third floor.
b) To declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the roofs of the suit premises.
c) To pass an order of restraining permanently the Defendants, their men and agents from interfering in any way with the right, title, interest and possession of the Plaintiff, their men and agents.
d) Cost of the suit.
e) Such other and further order / orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper.
5. Thus, this Bench finds that the reliefs sought for by the Plaintiff, is against the Defendants only and not against any other person. The applicant has prayed for addition of party, contending inter alia, that the Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6 (jointly) and 7 purchased four flats at the premises No. P-60, C.I.T. Road, Scheme VI M, P.S.-Phoolbagan, Kolkata - 700054 and that the said flat owners had formed an unregistered Association and the said Association had been registered subsequently. Under these circumstances, this Association should be added as party for proper adjudication of the suit.
6. An Association of the apartment owners is formed for providing for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas and facility of the property, to do any other thing for the administration of the property etc. The apartment owners are entitled to form an Association for the common benefit of its members.
7. The Association has no other independent interest with respect to the premises in suit except the welfare and benefits of its members. The Defendants who formed the Association are contesting the said suit and they have placed their statement of defence in respect of the claim made in the plaint. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the presence of the applicant is not at all necessary for the purpose of fair adjudication of the matter in dispute in the suit.
8. It is also the observation by the learned Trial Judge that the Association had been registered on April 28, 2009. But it has been wrongly mentioned that the Association was registered on February 5, 2008. So, the statement filed by the Association before the Court is false.
9. Further, this Bench also finds that the impugned order was passed on January 25, 2010 and the Plaintiff / opposite party filed a caveat on February 8, 2010. But the Civil Revision Case was filed on May 13, 2010, that is, beyond the 90 days from the date of passing of the order impugned. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, rightly rejected the belated application on merits. This Bench, therefore, supports the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge.
10. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.
11. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
