1 WP1195/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1195 OF 2011 Ishwar s/o Babulal Bawiskar, Age 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Bhattagaon, Tauka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon Petitioner V E R S U S 1 Pandit s/o Kalu Bawiskar, Age Major, Respondents 2 Vasant s/o Pandit Bawiskar, Age Major, 3 Ramesh s/o Pandit Bawiskar, Age Major, 4 Suresh s/o Pandit Bawiskar, Age Major, 5 Madhukar s/o Vasant Bawiskar, Age Major, 6 Gautama s/o Suresh Bawiskar, Age Major, 7 Samadhan s/o Khandu Bawiskar, Age Major, 8 Mrs Chaya w/o Vasant Bawiskar, Age Major, 9 Mrs Mathurabai w/o Sandu Bawiskar, Age Major, All Resident of Bhattagaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon Shri Shailendra S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner Smt Quazi Sadaf, Advocate, holding for Smt Naseem R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 9 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 3. This writ petition filed under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India is challenging a peculiar order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhadgaon, dated 11th June, 2010, on Exh. 06, in Regular 2 WP1195/11 Civil Suit No. 20 of 2010. The petitioner filed this suit saying that he and his joint family owns the suit property as ancestral one. He said that he filed the suit for and on behalf of his joint family. He then said that during the month of April, 2010, respondent Nos. 2 to 9 came upon the suit property and tried to stop agricultural operations of the petitioner’s family. He alleged that in the incident, respondent Nos. 2 to 9 used violence and caused bleeding and grievous injuries to the members of the petitioner’s family. On this cause of action, he said that he would be entitled to perpetual injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 9. There is no reference in the plaint to any other person much less respondent No. 1. The question involved in such a suit therefore is, whether the petitioner / plaintiff and his family members are in possession of the suit property. While this suit was pending, respondent No. 1, on 9th July, 2010, moved the present application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. He said that he should be added as defendant. He said that he is owner of the suit property and is in possession of the same, and so, he already has filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the present petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and the said suit is pending. He said that for this reason he should be added as defendant in this case. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, while the matter was before the lower Court and even before this Court, asserted that by adding respondent No. 1 to this litigation, possible conflict in Judgments in two different suits would be avoided. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 placed reliance on a Judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Khaja Abdul Khader v. Mahabub Saheb and others (AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 152). The Division Bench considered the scope of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of 3 WP1195/11 the Code of Civil Procedure quite elaborately and held that the phrase used in the provision “questions involved in the suit” is not limited to questions involved in the parties to the suit. The Division Bench held further that in view of this wide scope there could be addition of parties if the additional party is necessary or proper party to the suit without whom there can be no effective and final adjudication in all issues involved in the suit. In the light of these observations, I again perused respondent No. 1’s application. In this application, he made no reference to any fact which gave him reason to believe that he is owner and possessor of the suit land. He neither made any reference to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the application elaborating as to why they could be involved in this suit either collusively or otherwise. I think, respondent No. 1 should have mentioned his concern to the suit land qua the parties to the suit. Only with such pleading, the Court could have examined as to whether respondent No. 1 was necessary or proper party for deciding the issues involved in the suit. In any case, respondent No. 1 has already initiated a proceeding against the parties to the suit. This suit is already registered and is given Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2010, which is also pending in the same Court. It would be in the interest of the parties if the trial Court is directed to decide both these suits one after the other. The petition should therefore succeed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned order stands set aside. The learned Judge of the trial Court shall decide Regular Civil Suit Nos. 20 of 2010 and 33 of 2010 one after the other. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/1195/11/8/9/2011 ok 4 WP1195/11