1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO .3099 OF 2009 Kamlesh Lamba ..Petitioner versus Maniklal Futarmal Baldota and others ..Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbolei/b Mr.P.Anand , for Petitioner Mr.R.N.Sanghavi ,for Respondent no.1 Mrs.N.V.Masurkar , for Respondent no.2 CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J DATE : 16th February 2010 JUDGMENT: . By this Writ Petition under article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 23rd January 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Pune. The petitioner is not a party to the suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. The first respondent claims to be the owner of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint on the basis of the conveyance dated 15th February 1988 executed by the alleged original owner Mr.Adi Bahadurji. 2. The first respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the second respondent for compelling the second respondent to make , effect and carry out necessary changes in the General Land Register on the basis of conveyance executed by the original owner in favour of the first respondent. The said suit was instituted on the 5th December 2000. Prior to institution of the 2 said suit, the petitioner filed a suit against the first and second respondents and others contending that the sale deed executed on the 15th February 1988 in favour of the first respondent was null and void. A declaration to that effect was prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that the said conveyance was not binding on him and that no right has been accrued to the first respondent on the basis of the said conveyance. 3. In the suit filed by the first respondent, the petitioner made an application under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that he be added as a party defendant. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the said application by holding that the cause of action pleaded by the first respondent was only against the second respondent and even if the name of the first respondent is entered in the General Land Register, the Petitioner who is claiming to be a tenant in respect of the suit property will not be affected in any manner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is claiming relief in his suit based on the conveyance dated 15th February 1988 and in the suit filed by the petitioner, a declaration has been claimed that the said conveyance is null and void. He submitted that the case of the petitioner in his suit will be affected by the finding which may be recorded in the suit filed by the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent supported the impugned order. He submitted that even if the suit filed by the first respondent is decreed, the rights of the petitioner will not be 3 affected. He placed reliance on a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Joginder Singh versus the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (AIR Punjab and Haryana 234). He submitted that the petitioner being a tenant has no locus in the suit filed by the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted to the orders of the Court. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The first respondent claims to have become the owner of the suit property on the basis of a deed of conveyance dated 15th February 1988 executed in his favour by one Mr Adi Bahadurji. The case made out in the plaint is that the first respondent is the owner of the suit property and therefore his name must be incorporated in the General Land Register. The case made out by the petitioner in his suit is that the conveyance executed by the said Mr.Adi is null and void. It must be stated here that in the suit filed by the first respondent, the second respondent has filed a written statement denying that the first respondent has become the owner of the suit property on the basis of the said conveyance dated 15th February 1988. 6. Thus, in the suit filed by the first respondent the issue regarding the acquisition of title by the first respondent on the basis of the said conveyance will arise. In the suit filed by the petitioner, the issue of legality and validity of the said conveyance is involved. Therefore, the rights of the petitioner will be affected by the finding which may be recorded in the suit filed by the first respondent on the issue of title of the first respondent claimed on the basis of 4 the said conveyance. Thus the presence of the petitioner is necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit filed by the first respondent. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon by the first respondent will not help the first respondent. In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the issue was regarding validity of an order passed by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings in exercise of statutory powers. 7. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner will have to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent. Considering the issues involved in the suits, interests of justice require that both the suits should be heard together. The Principal District Judge, Pune will have to transfer the suits to the same court. 8. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 23rd January 2008 is quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioner at Exhibit 11 is allowed. (b) The Principal District Judge, Pune is directed to transfer the Regular Civil Suit No. 3405 of 2000 and Special Civil Suit No. 898 of 2001 to one and the same same Court. (c) The writ petition is allowed on the above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)