1. Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for the Respondent nos. 1a to 1d while none appeared for the respondents no.2a to 2c.

2. Rule, made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme waives service on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1a to 1d.

3. The petitioners by the present petition seek to take exception to the order dated 12/09/2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda pursuant to which the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C. came to be dismissed in a suit for demolition, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. It was the contention of Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the said suit was filed by the petitioners against the original defendants no.1 and 2 for the stated reliefs and which came to be adjourned sine die in view of the mundkarial issue. The original defendant no.2 expired on 09/04/1999 and, therefore, an application was moved within time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record. However, due to oversight, the widow of the original defendant no.2 namely Shobhavati remained to be brought on record. In the meantime, she moved an application dated 29/06/2013 seeking to intervene as a necessary party which was however opposed by the petitioners and came to be dismissed pursuant to the order of the trial Court dated 09/10/2014.

4. It was his further contention that there was an illegal construction carried out in the suit property by the defendants in May 2015 and the relief of temporary injunction was sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 filed their Written Statement in which they took a specific plea that Shobhavati was a necessary party and that the construction was carried out by her. It is pursuant to the specific pleading that the petitioners moved an application for impleadment of the said Shobhavati by recourse to an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. This application was, however, opposed by the legal heirs of the original defendants no.2a to 2c on the premise that it was bad in law, frivolous and not tenable. It was their case that the petitioners had deliberately not brought the widow of the defendant no.2 on record and that the alleged mistake committed by the petitioners in carrying out the amendment to the cause title could not be assigned to the Court Clerk. The impugned Order as passed was therefore not liable to be interfered with in the petition.

5. Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme for the respondent nos.1a to 1d, however, submitted that he would leave the matter to the orders of the Court. There was no contest whatsoever by the respondents no.2a to 2c despite due opportunity.

6. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that the petitioners had maintained the suit for permanent injunction, demolition and consequential reliefs against the respondents and in which an issue of mundkarship was raised on behalf of the defendants and pursuant to which the suit was adjourned sine die. There was no particular dispute that the defendant no.2 had expired on 09/04/1999 and an application moved by the petitioners to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record on 30/06/1999. However, it is equally a matter of record that the children of the deceased defendant no.2 alone were brought on record and the widow remained to be brought on record and in that status the proceedings continued. It was not particularly in dispute that the widow of the deceased defendant no.2 namely Shobhavati had sought to intervene in the proceedings as a necessary party and that at that stage the petitioners had opposed her impleadment and the learned trial Court by an order dated 09/10/2014 dismissed the application. Rather, the petitione