Bajrang Umrao Chavan And Another v. Bharat Maruti Chavan And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:25684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 11502 OF 2024 BAJRANG UMRAO CHAVAN AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
BHARAT MARUTI CHAVAN AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr.Manoj U. Shelke ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 15.10.2024 P.C. :
1] By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Dharashiv [Osmanabad] in Regular Civil Suit No.58/2023 below Exh.18 whereby the trial Court rejected the application for impleadment in the suit.
2] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3] Respondent no.1-original plaintiff filed RCS No.58/2023 against respondent nos.2 and 3 for permanent
injunction. The suit property is mentioned at para no.4 of the said suit, as under :
"४) हेकी, दावाजमीनीचातपशिलखालीलप्रमाणे- मौजेबुकनवाडीता.जि.
उस्मानाबादयेथीलजमीनगटक्र.१५८ एकुणक्षेत्र०१हे.
०७आरआकाररु.०२.
५८पैसेअसुनसदरजमीनीच्या चतुःसिमाखालीलप्रमाणे- पुर्वेस :- मधुकरविश्वनाथचव्हाण पश्चिमेस:- बिभिषणचव्हाण दक्षिणेस:- पळसपशिव उत्तरेस :- हरीसोपानपडवळकर"
4] The prayer clauses made in the said suit are as under :
तरीविनंतीकी वादीचादावाखालीलप्रमाणेमंजुरकरण्यातयावा अ.
हेकी, मौजेबुकनवाडीता.जि.
उस्मानाबादयेथीलजमीनगटक्र.
१५८एकुणक्षेत्र०१हे.
०७आरआकाररु.०२.
५८पैसेअसुनसदर जमीनीच्याचतुःसिमाखालीलप्रमाणे- पुर्वेस :- मधुकरविश्वनाथचव्हाण पश्चिमेस:- बिभिषणचव्हाण दक्षिणेस:- पळसपशिव उत्तरेस :- हरीसोपानपडवळकर यादावाजमिनीवरीलवादीचेकब्जेवहिवाटीसप्रतिवादीनेअथवा त्यांच्यातर्फेअन्यकोणीहरकतकरुनयेम्हणुनवादीयांच्याहक्कातआणि प्रतिवादीयांच्याविरुध्दकायमस्वरुपीमनाईदेण्यातयावी. ब.
हेकी, दाव्याचाखर्चवादीसप्रतिवादीकडुनदेववावा.
क.
हेकी, दाव्याच्याअनुषंगानेवादीसइतरजोकाहीन्यायमिळणेशक्य असेलतोहीदेण्यातयावा.
5] Thereafter on 18.03.2023, petitioner filed an application for impleadment contending that he would be affected by the final order in the suit more particularly if any measurement is carried out of suit property. The trial
Court has rejected the said application by order dated 20.07.2024. By order dated 20.07.2022, the trial Court has observed as under :
04.
......
दावामिळकतीच्यानमूदचतुःसिमेमध्येत्रयस्थअर्जदारयांची नावेदिसूनयेतनाहीतअथवातेशेतशेजारीअसल्याचेदिसूनयेतनाही. वादी यांनासदरत्रयस्थअर्जदारयांचेविरूध्दकसल्याहीप्रकारचीतक्रारनाहीअसे ...
दिसूनयेते .
6] The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his presence in the suit is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of dispute, though no relief is claimed against him and he relies upon the judgment in the case of Adam A.Sorathia and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another reported in 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. Para nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment as under :
8. The law relating to the necessary and proper parties to the proceedings is no longer untouched. The law is settled by series of judgments of this Court and of the Apex Court that where the presence of respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is claimed, against him, he is a proper party.
9. The necessity to join the applicants as parties to the suit would definitely depend upon the relief that has been claimed. It shall have to be examined whether the reliefs claimed cannot be granted without the intervention and participation of the
applicants. If it is so, then they would definitely be called as necessary parties. Reference to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of Civil Procedure Code at this juncture, would not be out of place. Under this provision a person, whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settled all the questions involved in the suit, will be necessary party and will have to be added. The Supreme Court in Udit Narayan Malpaharia vs. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, observed:- "Though these observations came to be made while entertaining the matter under writ jurisdiction and not under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C." for short), the principle set forth is equally salutary. The description as given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of Civil Procedure Code, coupled with observations cited supra would give the sufficient idea regarding the meaning of the term "necessary and proper parties."
It is equally true that the nature of controversy involved would equally decide the status of a party, namely, whether it is necessary or not. Both the questions have to be considered side by side. From that point of view the controversy raised in this revision application would require close scrutiny.
7] However, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the plaintiff has not prayed any relief against the present petitioners and the findings are recorded by the trial Court that the petitioners
are not even adjacent owner of the suit property. In view of the same, I do not see any error to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioners want to get demarcated the entire property and they may do so by initiating separate proceedings. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC