The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, as to whether the Court below was justified in allowing the application of the respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for being added as defendants in their individual capacity, despite the fact that they were already brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased original defendant no.1.

2. The petitioner had filed suit for specific performance against the deceased defendant no.1 i.e. predecessor of respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1[f] in respect of agreement dated 11-11-2009, executed by the said deceased defendant no.1 in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the suit property. It was stipulated in the said agreement that Sale Deed would be executed on 27-04-2011. As the said defendant failed to execute Sale Deed in terms of the said agreement, the petitioner was constrained to file suit for specific performance.

3. In the said suit, the deceased defendant filed his written statement opposing grant of decree. In the specific pleadings taken in the written statement, the deceased defendant also stated that the suit property was ancestral property that came to his share and that his children (i.e. respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] herein) also had rights in the suit property. The Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pandharkawada i.e. trial Court framed issues and the trial proceeded. The petitioner as plaintiff commenced his evidence on 28-02-2012 and upon examining himself and another witness, his evidence was closed on 07-11-2012. On 15-02-2013, the examination-in-chief of the original deceased defendant took place. Thereafter, on 03-11-2013, the said original defendant no.1 died.

4. As a consequence, respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] were brought on record as legal representatives of the said deceased defendant and on 04-07-2014, a pursis was filed on their behalf stating that they were adopting the written statement already filed on record by the deceased defendant and for deciding the suit the said written statement itself be taken into consideration.

5. Thereafter, on 16-11-2016, the respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] filed application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, for being added as defendants in their individual capacity. It was claimed by the said respondents that they were not properly guided by their Counsel about their independent rights and title in the suit property and on that basis they had signed the pursis which was placed on record before the trial Court. It was claimed that their father, the original defendant, did not have exclusive right to dispose of the suit property as it was ancestral property and that this was an important aspect, which was required to be brought on record and agitated by the said respondents upon being added as defendants in their individual capacity. The said application was opposed by the petitioner.

6. By the impugned order dated 25-1-2017, the trial Court allowed the said application and held that although the original defendant had taken a plea regarding the suit property being ancestral property, it was necessary that the respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] were added as defendants and allowed to participate in the suit in their individual capacity to prove their right in the suit property.

7. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was wholly unsustainable because, firstly, the respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] had filed a pursis dated 04-07-2014, before the trial Court categorically stating that they were accepting the written statement filed by the original defendant already on record and that the suit could be decided on the basis of the said written statement and that in this situation they could not be permitted to take a somersault to claim that they were entitled for being added as defendants in their individual capacity. Secondly, it was submitted by the l