IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2163 of 2006 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE FOOD CORPORATION ACT, 1964 WITH ITS HQRS AT NEW DELHI, ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT PATNA, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA AND DISTRICT OFFICE INTER-ALIA AT NORTH CHURCH ROAD, GANDHI MAINDAN, GAYA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGION), BIHAR, ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA ……… PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER Versus LAXMAN PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHAKHARANE MORE (HANUMAN NAGAR), DAUDNAGAR, P.S. & P.O. – DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT – AURANGABAD ………………. DEFENDANT – OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Sidheshwari Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Prabhakar Tikriwal, Advocate. For the Opp. Party:- Mr. Dhrun Nr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate. ------------ 7. 11.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant – opposite party. Petitioner is aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 08.11.2006, passed by the Sub Judge III, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 181/2004 / 2/06, whereby the court has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for impleading Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Daudnagar, Aurangabad through its Secretary as defendant no. 2. The court concerned has rejected the prayer on the ground that the same appears to be a dilatory tactics as many - 2 - witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and then that petition has been filed at the belated stage. Learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party submitted that the concerned court has correctly dismissed the petition as no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that initially the suit was filed only for the purpose of opening the locks from the suit property. However, subsequently upon the orders passed by this Court, locks were opened and rice kept therein was allowed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff, which was the interim arrangement subject to the result of the concerned suit. However, after opening the locks, it was found that the total quantity of rice, which was kept in the godowns / shops concerned, was merely worth about half the original quantity. Thereafter, the amendment application has been allowed in favour of the petitioner incorporating subsequent events and also for incorporating / adding a relief for recovery of the amount equivalent to the loss suffered on account of loss of - 3 - aforesaid quantity of rice allegedly misappropriated by the defendant. It is submitted that both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed that the shop had been let out in their favour by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Daudnagar (hereinafter referred to as the `Market Committee’). Thus, the submission is that the Market Committee, in the changed circumstances, may not be a necessary party, but surely, it is a proper party to be added in the suit. In Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRS. & Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706, the Apex Court has held that a Necessary Party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. I have heard the parties and perused the records of the case. By the impugned order while rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for addition of the Market Committee as - 4 - Defendant No. 2, the court concerned has only considered the aspect of dilatory tactics on the part of the plaintiff, but has not recorded any finding with regard to the fact as to whether the Marketing Committee would be a necessary party or a property party for determination of the lis between the parties. That question remained unanswered by the court concerned. In that view of the matter, I deem it proper that this matter may be remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration on that aspect of the matter. As a result, the impugned order dated 08.11.2006, to the extent it relates to rejection of the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned for fresh determination of the above issue in accordance with the observations made hereinabove preferably within four weeks from the date of production / receipt of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. It is made clear that petitioner has filed an affidavit stating therein that in the meantime the earlier statute, namely, Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Committee has been repealed by Bihar Agriculture Produce Market - 5 - (Repeal) Act, 2006 and, according to the new legislation, the Administrator and Special Officer would be the proper official to represent the Marketing Committee. The petitioner has also appended a copy of the aforesaid statute. In the above view of the matter, the trial court is also directed to take into account the further development while passing the order, as aforesaid. Petitioner is also directed to file such petition before the court below for that purpose. In the result, this Civil Revision stands disposed of. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )