1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2010 Ashish Tejmal Mugdiya, Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o 177/A, N-3 CIDCO, New Aurangabad .. APPELLANT (Orig. Plaintiff/Resp. No. 1 in W.P.) Versus 1 Mrs. Subhamma W/o Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Household, 2. Shivprasad S/o Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Service, 3. Nageshwarrao S/o Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Service, All R/oPlot No. N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 4. N. Anjanaiah S/o Narsasimhappa Kuntimal, Age : 69 Years, Occu. : Retired Govt. Servant, R/o Plot No. 129, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 5. The Administrator, City and Industrial Development 2 Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS (Respts. No. 1 to 3 Orig. Intervener / Petitioners of Writ Petition) Shri S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel with Shri D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 to 3. The Respondent No. 4 served. Shri Anilkumar S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER : 19.07.2010 DATE ON WHICH ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03/08/2010 ORDER [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : . This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1852/2010 of present respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, whose application for impleadment as defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 212/2009, pending on the file of IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Court Aurangabad, came to be allowed. 3 2. The aforesaid special civil suit was filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract in respect of plot No. 129, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad admeasuring 320 square meters and for execution of registered deed of assignment in his favour against present respondent No. 4 and 5 who are the original defendants No. 1 and 2. In the said special civil suit an application under Order I Rule 10 of C. P. C. came to be filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as defendant, and for intervention after issuing legal notice to the plaintiff. These respondents had challenged the suit transaction i. e. an agreement between the plaintif and the original defendant No. 1 Anjanaiah (present respondent No. 4) on the ground that the suit property is the joint family property and they had made huge investment therein. Admittedly, present respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are the family members of original defendant No. 1. The said application for impleadment as defendant in the suit for specific performance was contested between the parties and this is second round of litigation. The said application for impleadment came to be allowed in Writ Petition NO. 1852 of 2010 and te same is impugned in this letters patent appeal. 3. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2010 and also the impugned 4 application filed under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which was the subject matter in the writ petition and so also, in the present letters patent appeal. Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are closely related and they have raised claim to the house property in suit for specific performance which was sought against the original defendant No. 1. The main contention of the appellant is that in a suit for specific performance parties to the agreement only are necessary and proper parties and no other. The said issue was considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We find elaborate discussion in para 10, 11 and 12 referring to all the submissions and the authorities relied by the appellant. The same points are reiterated before us in this letters patent appeal also. The relevant para No. 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment are reproduced below as under : "12. I have considered the provisions laid down under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. I have taken into account the facts, pleadings and material brought on record by the parties. I have also noticed the earlier round of litigation i.e. Writ Petition No.5135 of 2009 filed before this Court. Order passed by this Court in the said writ petition is on record in this Writ Petition. In my view, it cannot be said that the present petitioners are busybodies who are 5 trying unnecessarily to protract or obstruct the Special Civil Suit No.212 of 2007. " "13. In this view of the matter, if the order passed by the trial Court is assessed, in my view, it requires to be quashed and set aside allowing the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding that the petitioners are having any title to the suit property and/or nature of the property is joint Hindu family property. These observations are to be read only restricted to the application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. " 4. We have gone through the entire judgment and found, that the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears sound. We find no fault and perversity in the findings recorded. The letters patent appeal is devoid of merits and therefore, same is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10