Abhishek Vinayak Deshmukh v. Leelabai Vinayakrao Deshmukh (Died) And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:1894 17 wp6237.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.6237 OF 2024 Abhishekh Vinayak Deshmukh Vs. Leelabai Vinayakrao Deshmukh and others __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Petitioner in-person with Advocate Prabhakaran P. (5895) for petitioner.

CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

DATE : 04.02.2026.

1.

Heard the petitioner in-person as well as his counsel. 2.

The petition challenges the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge Junior Division, Akola below Exh.57 in Small Causes Suit No.18/2011 whereby, the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") for deletion of his name has been rejected.

3.

It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his step-sisters. The step-sisters claiming themselves to be landlords, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent of the tenanted premises against the tenant/ defendant no.1, which is pending before the Small Causes Court.

4.

Pending the suit, the present petitioner filed an application for addition of his name. According to the

17 wp6237.24.odt petitioner, he is also the landlord of the tenanted premises in question and is taking rent from the tenant/defendant no.1. On his application, the trial Court added him as a party defendant. However, again by filing an application below Exh.57, the petitioner sought deletion of his name. According to him, he is not a necessary party. 5.

The trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner had been added as party defendant on his own application and now he is taking a Uturn. 6.

Since, the petitioner is also claiming to be the owner of the tenanted property and on his application, the trial Court had added him as party defendant, I do not see any perversity in the order of the trial Court in rejecting the application for deletion his name.

7.

Even otherwise, if the petitioner is claiming to have received rent from the tenant /defendant no.1, his presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed.

(M.W. Chandwani, J.) Wagh