The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code and the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in justifying the amendment and joining of additional parties to the suit.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dt. 5/3/2012 passed in R.C.S. No. 211/2008 by 32nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Pune and order dt. 30/1/2014 passed against the said order by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal no. 109 of 2011.

3. Petitioners have challenged the order on the various grounds as set out in detail in the petition. Since the challenge raised in the petition confines to order dt. 5/3/2012 passed in R.C.S. No. 211/2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application to join the petitioners No. 2 and 3 as party No. 2 and 3 along with petitioner no. 1/plaintiff in the counter claim made by respondent No. 1, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case in detail.

4. It appears from the record that petitioner No.1 i.e. Mr. Gurmit Singh Bagga had filed suit for injunction as against respondent No. 1, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 211/2008. In the suit filed by petitioner No. 1, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 1 i.e. Mrs. Indrajit Kaur Bagga, who is the wife of Mr. Iqbal Singh Bagga (petitioner No. 3 herein) the marriage between them was solemnized long back and since the year 1992, respondent No. 1 was not residing with petitioner No. 3. She has filed various proceedings against petitioner No. 3 and other family members including the criminal case u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Without any cause or any reason respondent No. 1 was to make false complaints with the police. On the basis of these false complaints, the police personnel visited the house of petitioner No. 1. In view of the alleged act of respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed petition seeking prohibitory injunction against the respondent No. 1 not to cause any injury, damage to his german sheferd dog Bruno and also not to lodge false complaint with the police. In the year 2010, petitioner No. 1 (the plaintiff in said suit) withdrawn that suit by filing pursis to that effect. By order dt. 3/2/2010 the then Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Pune, was pleased to dispose of the suit as withdrawn with no order as to costs. However, the learned Judge passed an order that the application Exh. 55 & 56 filed by the defendant i.e. respondent No. 1 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 be heard on merits. It appears that though the original plaintiff has withdrawn the suit, the suit remained to be continued and prosecuted at the instance of the defendant i.e. respondent No. 1, treating that application as counter claim. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed an application as contemplated under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, to join the present petitioners No. 2 and 3 as party defendants to the suit. Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn, Pune was pleased to allow the said application. However, the application was not amended though the application was allowed. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed an application vide Exh. 111 for amendment of the said counter claim filed by respondent No. 1 claiming certain reliefs as against petitioner No. 2 i.e. including added defendants. The application was opposed. By the impugned order dt. 5/3/2012 passed by 32nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Pune, allowed the application Exh. 111 and allowed the respondent No. 1 to cure the defect by carrying out the amendment and file fresh amended plaint by adding new plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Appeal u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Sessions Court, Pune. Vide judgment and order dt. 30/1/2014, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, pleased to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

5. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, son of petitioner No. 1 appearing along wit