K.R. Shriram, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and are in possession of the suit property and also for declaration that the agreement for sale executed on 23rd January 1983 by one Devubai Thakur in favour of one Taukirahmed Mohammed Hanif Khan, i.e., defendant No. 1 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the agreement dated 22nd January 1988 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of one Govind K. Bardricha, i.e., defendant No. 5 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 17th July 2004.

The subject matter of the suit is a property admeasuring 6168.08 sq. yards or thereabout situated at Dahisar, Borivali Taluka, Mumbai Suburban District (for brevity as 'the suit property').

All the plaintiffs had executed a development agreement and an irrevocable general power of attorney both dated 3rd September 2005 and both registered on 11th November 2005 whereby the applicants claim to have been put in possession of the suit property. As per the power of attorney, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and one more person by name Keshavrao B. More were also authorized to file legal proceedings for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. Pursuant to the said power of attorney, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 with the said More had signed and verified the present suit for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 conducted the proceedings in this suit including appointment of advocates. The rest of details in the plaint are necessary for deciding this application.

2. The plaintiffs allegedly revoked the power of attorney of the applicants. The applicants' earlier Advocate received a letter from one Advocate Ashok Mishra (present Advocate for the plaintiffs) requesting for the earlier Advocate to give NOC. On the letterhead the name of Advocate Riddhi Shah was also mentioned. The said Advocate Ms. Riddhi Shah had also issued a public notice on 25th April 2013 on behalf of undisclosed clients stating that they were interested in acquiring the said property and inviting objections. The then Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs had raised an objection. Since it was the same Advocate whose name appeared in the letter of Advocate Ashok Mishra seeking NOC, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 apprehend that there was some conspiracy or collusion going on between the plaintiffs and some third party to deprive the applicants of their rights. It is for this reason, this chamber summons is taken out on behalf of the applicants to be impleaded as party defendants.

The applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of applicant No. 1. The applicants apprehend that if the applicants are not joined in the suit it is possible the plaintiffs may simply withdraw or abandon the suit one fine day or may enter into compromise with the defendants or may give up the title or obtain a consent decree with the defendants whereby the plaintiffs' rights will get prejudiced. The applicants state that the applicants would be affected by any order/decision that would be rendered against the plaintiffs as it will ultimately affect the right, title and interest of the applicants in the said property and in view of the agreements executed in favour of the applicants and an irrevocable power of attorney issued in favour of applicants, there is an enforceable legal right in favour of the applicants and hence the applicants are necessary parties.

3. The Counsel for the applicants made extensive submissions under Order 23, Rule 1, Rule 1-A, Rule 3 read with Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The submissions were as under:--

"i) Order 23, Rule 1 enables the plaintiff to withdraw and/or abandon whole or part of the suit. Under Rule 1-A of Order 23, when the plaintiff abandons and/or withdraws the suit, any defendant can