1 (WP 4024 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4024 OF 2011 Piyush Nandkumar Jain and Ors. ...Petitioners (Org.Plaintiffs) Vs. Club of Tivim and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Khan Javed Akhtar for Petitioners Mr.David Joseph i/b. M/s. David Associates for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Respondents. 2. The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Original Defendants. The Respondent No.1 has been directed by the Trial Court to be added as Defendant in the suit filed by the Petitioners herein. A suit was filed for eviction by the Petitioners on various grounds under the Bombay Rent Act. The Respondent No.1 filed his written statement and in the written statement, a specific averment was made that in fat, the premises was given on rent for the 2 (WP 4024 of 2011) welfare of the persons coming for education from Village Tivim- Goa and the rent receipts were issued by the landlord to the oldest members of the Club of “Tivim Cares”. After the written statement was filed, an application was filed for amendment of the written statement. In which, it was contended that the Club of Tivim may be added as Defendant in the suit and the written statement and further paragraphs 8(a) and 8(f) may be added as per the schedule of amendment. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the Defendant No.1 could not have filed that application on behalf of the Club of Tivim. 3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, in which, it was contended that the Respondent No.1 was a necessary and proper party and reliance was placed on number of documents in support of the said application. The Trial Court rejected the said application. The Appeal Court, however, allowed the said application taking into consideration the fact that the Defendant No.1 in his written statement has made a specific averment to that effect and also taking into consideration the voluminous evidence on which reliance was placed by the Respondent No.1. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the 3 (WP 4024 of 2011) Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has vehemently urged that the Trial Court had erred in granting the application filed by the Club of Tivim. He submitted that there was evidence to show that tenancy was not granted in favour of the Club. Secondly, it was contended that it was unregistered club and it was registered only in the year 2009. It was also contended that the revision application was not maintainable. 6. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The Respondent No.1 has claimed to be in possession of the suit premises and had relied on number of documents. Ultimately, the Respondents’ application is rejected. The Respondent No.1 can always obstruct the decree and in such an event, the Respondent No.1 would have right to contest the obstructionist noticed as if it is a suit. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would be appropriate to permit the Respondent No.1 to be added as Defendant in the suit. 7. In my view, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The contention of the learned counsel appearing 4 (WP 4024 of 2011) on behalf of the Petitioners that the revision application was not maintainable also is without any substance. By virtue of rejection of the application by the Trial Court, the substantive right of the Respondent No.1 being added as a Defendant was affected and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said order is merely a procedural order. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, in my view, it would be appropriate if the hearing of the suit is expedited. 8. The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of one year. (V.M. KANADE J.)