1 wp-7608-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7608 of 2011 Valkabai Dhundia Gaikar through attorney Kanchan Ramji Wadi .. Petitioners Versus Harishchandra Anant Pandit & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8517 OF 2011 M/s. Aristo Developers ..Petitioners Versus Valkabai Dhundia Gaikar through attorney Kanchan Ramji Wadi & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pradeep Kadam for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.7608 of 2011 Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w Mr. Sushant Chavan i/b Shiralkar & Co. for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2011 and for Respondent No.5 in writ Petition No.7608 of 2011 Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.10 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above petitions arises out of a common order dated 7-7-2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court by which Order, the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the original 2 wp-7608-11 plaintiff i.e the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7608 of 2011, came to be partly allowed, in so far as, the averments which were sought to be included in the plaint is concerned. However, it was rejected to the extent of arraying the proposed Defendant as Defendant No.10 to the suit. 3 In so far as, the amendments are concerned, the same were allowed by the Trial Court on the basis that the said averments formed part of the Notice of Motion which was filed by the Plaintiff. It is required to be noted that the said Notice of Motion filed for interim relief being pending the suit, was rejected. In my view, considering the reasons mentioned, in so far as, allowing the amendment in the plaint to the extent of mentioned in the operative part of the impugned order, no fault can be found in the impugned order of the Trial Court as the said amendment would unmistakably lead to the complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 4 In so far as, the impleadment of the Defendant No.10 is concerned, the Trial Court has rejected the same on the ground that there is no material on record on the basis of which the proposed Defendant No.10 is sought to be impleaded. In the said context, it is required to be noted that the Defendant No.10 has now become the owner of the property in question though earlier he was similarly situated as the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as a lessee. 5 In my view, therefore, in the context of the relief sought in the suit 3 wp-7608-11 i.e. the injunction that the Plaintiff should not be dispossessed without due process of law, the impleadment of the proposed Defendant No.10 is necessary. The impugned order is therefore, to the extent that it rejects the application for arraying the proposed Defendant No.10 is set aside and resultantly the application to the said extent is allowed, meaning thereby that the permission granted to the Plaintiff to amend the plaint to array the proposed Defendant No.10 as party Defendant to the said suit. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. 7 The issue of limitation is kept open for being urged before the Trial Court. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)