Smt. Vatsalabai Wd/O Digambar Gangawane And Others v. Vishwas @ Dhondu Mukinda Gangawane And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:5366 1 WP510-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.510/2026 (VATSALABAI DIGAMBAR GANGAWANE & OTHERS VERSUS VISHWAS @ DHONDU MUKINDA GANGAWANE & OTHERS) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATE : MARCH 25, 2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the application for deletion of the respondent nos.6 and 7 (i.e. defendant nos.3 and

4) from the array of parties.

3.

The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Regular Civil Suit no.8 of 2008 for declaration and permanent injunction in which Tahsildar, Washim and State of Maharashtra through Collector, Washim were arrayed as party defendants. The suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011. The original defendant nos.1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Appeal no.65 of 2011 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'). During pendency of the appeal, the respondent nos.1 to 5, who were original plaintiffs in the suit, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with

2 WP510-26.odt Section 107(2) of the Code for deleting the names of the respondent nos.6 and 7 from the appeal. This application came to be rejected by order dated 12.02.2025 which is challenged by way of instant petition.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners-original plaintiffs are entitled to seek deletion of parties from the suit and since no relief is claimed against the defendant nos.3 and 4, the application for deletion of their names ought to have been allowed. He also submitted that the original defendant nos.3 and 4 have not infact participated in the proceedings and the application for deletion of their names was innocuous. 5.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that due consideration was given to the fact that the suit plot was allotted to the respondent no.1, which was a Government property. It has to be noted that the cause of action of filing the suit was an application before the Tahsildar for removal of encroachment and therefore the defendant nos.3 and 4 were arrayed as party defendants to the suit. As such, considering the nature of controversy being related to a property which was a Government property and the nature of relief about removal of encroachment, the prayer for deletion of the names of the defendant nos.3 and 4 is rightly rejected. Further, it has to be noted that the appeal itself is at the stage of final arguments, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners and therefore deletion of the names of the respondent

3 WP510-26.odt nos.6 and 7 i.e. the original defendant nos.3 and 4 to the suit, at this stage is not warranted.

6.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Appellate Court has given due consideration to all the factual and legal aspects and has recorded proper reasons which needs no interference at this stage. The view taken by the Appellate Court is plausible and no perversity is seen. In view of the above, no indulgence is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

However, considering the fact that the appeal is pending since the year 2011 and considering the advanced age of the parties, the Appellate Court is requested to expeditiously decide Regular Civil Appeal no.65 of 2011, preferably within a period of three months from today. Order accordingly.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/04/2026 19:42:49