1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3212 OF 2010 (Prakash Vishwanath Warule vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3213 OF 2010 (Yogendra Divakar Sawalkar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3214 OF 2010 (Anand Radheshyam Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2010 (Salauddin Nasruddin Kazi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3216 OF 2010 (Ghanshyam Madanlalji Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3217 OF 2010 (Shyam Surajlalji Patalia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3218 OF 2010 (Sheikh Jalil Sheikh Sheru vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3219 OF 2010 (Ramesh Khushalrao Turankar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2010 (Rajesh Shyamlal Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 3221 OF 2010 (Kishore Motiramji Gorade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 27, 2010. Heard Shri Chandurkar with Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners – plaintiffs, S/Shri Thakare, Fulzele, Kankale, Joshi and Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGPs in respective writ petitions, Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6. The challenge in Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2010 is to the order passed below Exh. 19 in Regular 2 Civil Suit No. 235 of 2009 on 29.06.2010 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha. By said order, present respondents No. 4 to 6 have been directed to be impleaded as defendants No. 4 to 6 in that suit under order 1, Rule 8(A) of Civil Procedure Code. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel has contended that the provisions required a finding that a question of law is directly and substantially in issue in such suit and the present respondents No. 4 to 6 are interested in its adjudication. According to him, here the application of mind by trial Court itself demonstrates that there is no question of law directly and substantially in issue. He has pointed out that at two places said finding is recorded by the trial Court. According to him, in view of this specific finding, recourse to provisions of Order 1, Rule 8(A) is not possible. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ravi Rao Gaikwad vs. Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Association & Ors., reported at AIR 2006 SC 1991, to urge that when material on record is sufficient to answer the issue, such addition of parties is not legally permissible. The petitioners – plaintiffs are dominus litus and hence contrary to their wish, the defendant cannot be allowed to be added. Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel has invited attention to suit as filed to show that in suit, the petitioners have claimed declaration of their status as tenant of Municipal Council with further direction that 3 they cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of law. He states that the land in occupation of the petitioners is required for Court building and accordingly it is so reserved. In view of this reservation and position, Respondent No. 4 – Bar Association and Respondents No. 5 & 6 (Advocates) filed the application and sought leave to be impleaded. His contention is, the plaint contains a assertion that adjacent land is to be used for court building but that contention is not correct. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 – Municipal Council states that as land is required for court building, notices for removal of encroachment and for vacation are given to the petitioners. He states that Municipal Council has no objection if Respondents No. 4 to 6 are impleaded as defendants. The other respondents also do not have any specific objection in this respect. The perusal of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court shows that there writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 (before the Hon'ble Apex Court) was dismissed and a prayer for intervention in Writ Petition was not accepted. Discussion in para 7 does not contain any reference to Order 1, Rule 8(A) of CPC but it appears that the proceedings before the learned Single Judge of High Court were in the nature of writ petition. The question to be decided was whether there was deemed grant of license and the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the question needed to be decided only on the basis 4 of office records. It is apparent that the facts at hand are entirely different. The contentions of the petitioners about their entitlement and status need to be decided on the basis of the facts as also law. The land prima facie appears to be needed for Court building, therefore, to protect the land and to keep it available for court building, the Bar Association and Advocates have made prayer to get themselves impleaded. However, it cannot be ignored that the trial Court has at two places found that no question of law is involved either directly or substantially in the matter. The said finding has not been assailed before this Court by respondents No. 4 to 6. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by permitting Respondents No. 4 to 6 to intervene in said Civil Suit to assist the court in adjudicating the matter. At the instance of the petitioners, it is clarified that the observations made about need of land in their occupation, prima facie is only for the purposes of this order and the trial Court shall answer that issue independently on the material placed before it without getting influenced by it. The impugned order passed in Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2010, below Exh. 19 in Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2009 is accordingly modified and the petitioner – plaintiff is directed to show respondents No. 4 to 6 before this Court as intervenors in Civil Suit. In view of this discussion, identical orders 5 passed in other Civil Suits are also modified to that extent and other writ petitions are also partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.