1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8378 OF 2011 Manohar P. Waradkar ...Petitioner Versus The Superintendent of Land Record & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr. Counsel i/b. Rajendra K. Yadav for the Petitioner Mr.Prashant Darandale Asst. G.P. for respondents nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and 7 Mr.Mehul Shah for the respondent nos.8 and 9 Adv. Rajiv Singh i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co. for the respondent no.3 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.8 and 9 waives service of the petition. The present respondent nos.1 to 7 are not necessary for disposal of this petition. Hence, by consent, petition is taken up for hearing. 2 2. The petitioner has filed Short Cause Suit No.5060 of 1998 to seek declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the land covered by the said suit, by adverse possession. In the said suit respondent nos.8 and 9 filed Chamber Summons No.191 of 2011. That Chamber Summons was granted by impugned order dated 27.9.2011 and the respondent nos.8 and 9 are ordered to be joined as party defendants. 3. Order dated 27.9.2011 is challenged in this petition. I have heard learned Advocates on behalf of the respective parties. The respondent nos.8 and 9 contend that they are in possession of the part of the land which is subject matter of the aforesaid suit and on that ground they should be joined as party defendant. It is required to be noted that the petitioner claims that he is owner of the property by adverse possession. In such a situation, if at all the decree is passed in favour of the petitioner when respondent nos.8 and 9 are not parties to this suit, needless to mention that the said decree will not be binding upon the respondent nos.8 and 9. In my view, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the presence of respondent nos.8 and 9 is necessary to decide the present 3 suit. A perusal of the record goes to show that there is no lis between the petitioner and respondent nos.8 and 9 so far as this suit is concerned. If that is so, their presence is not required. 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Hence the order ORDER Order dated 27.9.2011 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)