Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9363 OF 2007 Kashinath Motiram Patil & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.S.Dani for the petitoners Mr. S.D.Patil for respondent no.6 Mr. R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. M.S.Lagu i/b. R.S.Apte for respondent no.5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Mr. S.D.Patil waives service for respondent no.6. Mr. Apte waives service for respondent no.5 and Mr. Patne, AGP waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 is not the contesting party for the purposes of the present petition. The issue involved in the present petition is in the context of order passed by the lower Court on the application filed by respondent no.6. In that sense the real controversy in this petition is confined to the claim of respondent no.6 who is appearing through Advocate and waives notice. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up by consent for final disposal. 2 2. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane dated 3-9-2007 below Exhibit 152 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1177 of 1994. By the said decision the Trial Court allowed the application preferred by respondent no.6 and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead respondent no.6 as party defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and injunction in respect of Award passed in relation to land survey no. 29, Hisa no.9 admeasuring 4 gunthas, survey no. 29 Hisa no. 5 admeasuring 2 acres one gunthas, survey no. 29, Hisa no.10 admeasuring 4 acres 24 gunthas and claimed possession thereof from the defendants. 3. During the pendency of the said Suit respondent no.6 filed application praying that he may be impleaded as one of the defendant in the pending suit on the assertion that he was interested in the outcome of the suit as it challenges the Award which also pertains to land bearing old survey no. 31/1, new Gat 52/6, old survey no. 31/5, new Gat no 49/1 and old survey no. 46-A, new Gat no. 56/5. According to respondent no.6 if the petitioner’s challenge to the award as a whole was to be accepted, that would inevitably affect the right of respondent no.6 in relation to the above said lands which was owned by him. The application filed by 3 respondent no.6 was essentially founded on the said assertion, which claim of respondent no.6 has been accepted by the Appellate Court on the basis of which it proceeded to hold that the outcome of the suit was likely to affect the rights of respondent no.6 for which reason he would be proper party to the suit if not a necessary party. 4. Having considered the rival submissions, the entire controversy which requires to be addressed in this petition can be answered in the context of the stand taken by the petitioner before this Court. According to petitioners, petitioners were seeking declaration and injunction in relation to the Award No. LAQ-SR-26 dated 20-5-1961 only limited to the survey nos. which were owned and possessed by the petitioners referred to earlier. In other words, the petitioners are not seeking any relief in respect of any other land referred to in the said Award. If it is so the question of right or interest of respondent no.6 being affected by the outcome of the present suit filed by the petitioners does not arise at all. In any case even if the petitioners have asked for general relief challenging the award referred to above, however, on reading the assertion in the plaint, it is more than clear that relief claimed in the suit is limited to the survey nos. 4 which were owned and possessed by the petitioners which are referred to earlier. It is in that context that even the Trial Court has framed issue and which makes no reference to other lands mentioned in the award in question. Even for this reason it will necessarily follow that the outcome of the suit filed by the petitioners will have no impact on the right or interest of respondent no.6 emanating from the said award which is already accrued to respondent no.6 or otherwise. If it is so, respondent no.6 will neither be necessary or proper party to the suit filed by the petitioners which limits the challenge in the context of land bearing 3 survey numbers which are referred to earlier in paragraph 2 above. For that reason, the impugned judgment and order will have to be set aside and the application preferred by respondent no.6 rejected. 5. Accordingly this Writ Petition succeeds. Impugned Judgment and order is set aside and instead the application filed by respondent no.6 for impleading in suit stands rejected subject to above. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]