1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH:NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.127/2011 SMT. RANGUBAI BRAHMANKAR VERSUS SEWAK VIRUTKAR AND OTHERS =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE:11.1.2011. ORAL ORDER By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 19.7.2010, rejecting the amendment application and also the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for joining the Tahsidlar as a party to the suit. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration and perpetual and prohibitory injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as owner thereof and the defendants specifically defendant no.1, were forcibly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant no.1 that he was the owner of the suit property along with his sister and the plaintiff/ petitioner had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Yet another suit was filed by the defendant no.1 against the present petitioner and respondent no.2 to 4 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. Both the suits were tried together. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner became aware for 2 the first time on 19.11.2007 that the respondents had wrongly mutated their names over the suit property and hence an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint for seeking a declaration that the mutation entries were null and void. The petitioners also filed yet another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for joinder of Tahsidlar as party defendant to the suit. Both these civil applications are however dismissed by the trial court by separate order dated 19.7.2010. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings of the parties as also the impugned orders, it appears that the trial court has not committed any error whatsoever in rejecting both the applications filed by the petitioner. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar mutating the name of the respondents in the revenue record, the petitioner had an appropriate remedy of challenging the order of the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner had belatedly moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure after the petitioner had closed her evidence and the evidence of the respondent was in progress. The trial court rightly held that it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In any case the amendment was not necessary for effectively deciding the real controversy between the parties. The Tahsidlar was not a necessary party to the civil suit in which the petitioner had sought a declaration and mandatory prohibitory injunction. The trial court rightly held that the Tahsildar was not a 3 necessary party to the lis involved between the plaintiff and the defendant. The orders passed by the trial court on both the applications are just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.