P L D 1960 Dacca 734 (PLP)

3. This application was resisted on behalf of the certificate -purchaser on the ground that it would raise a completely different kind of issue which was not within the scope of the suit, as originally framed, and it was urged that this would give rise to a multiplicity of proceedings and confusion at the trial.

4. These persons sought to be joined as plaintiffs on the ground that they had an agreement for a purchaser of these lands from the parents of opposite‑party No. 1.

5. Notwithstanding that such objections were raised, the learned Munsif did not fix any date for taking evidence or for the filing of any written objection in this matter but passed the order forthwith. The order in both these matters reads thus: "One Jharu Mahmud and 5 others appear by v. nama and file a petition under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., praying for adding them in the category of plaintiffs on the grounds stated in the petition. Copy sent on the other side. Heard, prayer allowed. Let the petitioners be added as plaintiffs. Amend the plaint and register."

6. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court and it is urged on his behalf that under Order I, rule 10 the Court has first to be satisfied as to the con ditions mentioned in the said Order before any person can be added either as a plaintiff or as a defendant. Under sub‑rule 1, it is contemplated that where a suit has been, through a bona fide mistake, instituted in the name of a wrong person or where it is doubtful that it has been instituted in the name of the right person, then and only then a substitution or addition of that plaintiff can be made.

7. Again under sub‑rule (2), the Court has to come to some kind of finding that a person bas been improperly joined or that a person whose presence was necessary before the Court has not been joined and that it is necessary to so join him in order to do complete justice in the case and to decide all questions involved in the suit.

8. The order, as passed, does not indicate that the Court applied its mind to any one of these considerations. It was incumbent on the Court to disclose some reasons at least in its order.

9. The learned Advocate has, of course, gone further and urged that I should not only remand these matters for fresh deter mination but that I should also vacate the said order as the allega tions upon which these opposite‑parties wanted to be added as plaintiffs were not sufficient for making them either necessary or proper parties to the suit. The mere agreement to sell conferred no right, title or interest in the said lands and, therefore, they could not be treated as persons interested in the lands.

10. I do not propose to decide the question of the locus standi of these opposite‑parties at this stage, for, I am of the opinion that the order, as passed, is defective by reason of the fact that no reasons for the order have been given.

11. I therefore, vacate this order and send these cases back to the Court below for a proper consideration and for writing out a proper order in accordance with law. The Court below will consider under what particular grounds the opposite‑parties seek to be added as plaintiffs in these suits and whether they have made out any case for such addition.

12. These Rules are, accordingly, made absolute. Costs of the hearing before me will abide the result of the hearing in the Court below. K B. A. Rule made absolute.