1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2009 1. Mr. Surinder Kumar Khosla, major of age, 58 years, British National, Civil Contractor, 2. Mrs. Vijaylakshmi Surinder Khosla, Both husband and wife, both residing at 502/1, Sankwadi, Arpora, Bardez Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Shri Pradip Pundalik Ghadi Amonkar, 2. Smt. Roshni Pradip Ghadi Amonkar, Both husband and wife, Both residing at Gangadhar Apartments, (Rear Building – Ground Floor ) Behind Ganesh Mandir, Khorlim, Mapusa Goa 403 507. 3. Shri Sunil Dattaram Divkar, 4. Smt. Tanuja Sunil Divkar, Both husband and wife, Both residing at 71/D-S, Feira Alto, Duler, Mapusa Goa – 403 507. 5. M/s Maizons Coastline Developers Pvt. Ltd., Arpora, Bardez Goa. ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Anthony D'Silva, Advocate for the Respondent nos.1 to 5. 2 Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 13 th AUGUST, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. Petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 7.7.2008 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1/2005/B by Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa Goa, thereby rejecting defendants' application for impleadment of Economic Development Corporation, Panaji as party defendant. 3. While it is a fact that the plaintiffs have opposed this application and do not want to add to array of defendants. The averments contained in the plaint, written statement, and counter claim reference to actions on the part of the Economic Development Corporation is disclosed in various paragraphs. 4. In these premises, the petitioners are pursuing the present petition. 5. This petition is opposed by the respondents relying upon the judgments namely :- (a) AIR 1997 Delhi 319 in Evangelical Church of India V/s North India Outreach Society and others. 3 (b) AIR 2005 SC 2813 in Kasturi V/s Iyyamperumal and others. 6. The law on the point of parties to the suit has different facets. Parties can be added if those are proper parties, if not essentially, necessary parties. 7. This Court is satisfied that for avoiding multiplicity of litigation the impleadment of Economic Development Corporation appears to be necessary, it being a proper party. 8. Since the impleadment is being done at the behest of the defendants, it should be done at the cost of the defendants and not at the cost of the plaintiffs. 9. Petitioners shall have to bear cost of this petition, as well as cost of impleadment in the suit, supply of copies of plaint, and pay process fee etc for service of suit summons on the added defendant. 10. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) by allowing petitioners' application for impleadment on the conditions contained in para 9. A. H. JOSHI, J. at*