1 13 wp 6010.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk WRIT PETITION NO.6010 OF 2010 Arvind Baburao Patil ..Petitioner. v/s. Gram Panchayat, Budhgaon & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Ms. Deepti N. Pawar for the Petitioner. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 The Respondent no.2/Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.304 of 2009 against the Respondent no.1 Gram Panchayat, Budhgaon for perpetual injunction in respect of the property bearing Gram Panchayat No.921/1 on which he was running a shop. In para 1 of the plaint the description of the property was given and it was mentioned that infront of the said shop there is 2 13 wp 6010.10.doc open land up-to the Public road and also to both sides of the said shop there was open land. Lateron, he moved an Application Exhibit 47 for amendment in the Plaint. By the amendment he wanted to clarify that land to the north of his shop is open but the land to the southern side belongs to a private party. 3 Another important amendment was to implead the present Petitioner as Defendant no.2. According to him, previously one Prabhakar Sahastrabuddhe had filed Regular Civil Suit No.543 of 1989 in respect of City Survey No.842, situated to the southern side of Sidheshwar Kirana Stores, which was given to the Plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat. That suit was dismissed on 15.06.2007. On 24.02.2009, the present Petitioner had purchased the properties bearing City Survey No.837, 838, 839, 840, 842 and 843 from said Prabhakar Sahastrabuddhe. In the sale deed it was mentioned that the earlier number of the property was 921/1. Infact, according to the Plaintiff, the shop belonging to him is the Gram Panchayat property No.921/1 and thus under the sale deed executed by the Prabhakar Sahastrabuddhe in favour of the present Petitioner, attempt is made to sell his property bearing Gram Panchayat No.921/1 belonging to the Plaintiff and 3 13 wp 6010.10.doc therefore, it has become necessary to implead the present Petitioner as Defendant. This Application was allowed and that order is challenged in the present Petition. 4 In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that by the sale deed dated 24.02.2009 executed by Prabhakar Sahastrabuddhe in favour of the present Petitioner, the rights of the Plaintiff on the Gram Panchayat property No.921/1 are clouded. In view of the facts and circumstances, the said amendment was necessary to implead the present Petitioner as Defendant no.2, otherwise there could be multiplicity of the litigations in respect of the said property. 5 Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]