JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions have been filed by original plaintiffs challenging orders passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Canacona (trial Court), whereby applications filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in these Writ Petitions have been allowed and the said respondents have been directed to be added as defendants in the suits. According to the petitioners, the trial Court erred in passing the impugned orders and that the principles governing Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), were not applied in the correct perspective by the trial Court.

2. The petitioners before this Court filed suits against respondent nos.1 and 2 in these Writ Petitions, for declaration and consequential reliefs. The petitioners claim that they deserve to be declared as owners in possession of the suit properties and the respondent nos.1 and 2, being the original defendants, deserve to be restrained permanently from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in the property in question.

3. During the pendency of the suits, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in these Writ Petitions filed applications for intervention and for being added as defendants in the suits. Being components o