1. Heard Shri P.S. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 11 while none appeared on behalf of the respondents no.12 & 13.

2. It was the contention of Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Trial Court had passed the impugned order to delete the name of the respondents no.12 & 13 from the proceedings and also to delete the issue of tenancy even though they had carved a specific case of tenancy in respect of the half of the suit property 308/1 unlike the respondents no.1 to 11 who had claimed the right to the entire property. The issue of tenancy was relevant and had to be referred to the Mamlatdar. He referred to the order passed by this Court dated 10/01/2017 and relied in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwanrao Auti V/s. Ganpatrao Raut & Anr. [1987 3 BCR 258] and submitted that the respondents no.12 & 13 were necessary parties being some of the co-owners which was otherwise admitted by the respondents no.1 to 11 in their statement in defence apart from claiming tenancy. He further contended that the ratio in Smt. Palmira Valadares V/s. Shri Inacio Mariano Dias &