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 or members of the respondent no.1-Communidade of Agonda, they claimed that the said Communidade was not defending the suits properly and the petitioners who were allegedly rank encroachers were likely to succeed in the suits. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 placed before the trial Court the fact that they had been agitating against the alleged encroachments of the Communidade property by the petitioners and despite the fact that the respondent no.1 Communidade was expected to take necessary steps for protection of the property, proper steps were not being taken. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 had submitted number of complaints before the respondent no. 2, the Administrator of Communidades, but when no action was forthcoming, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 along with other components of the Communidade had filed Writ Petition (Stamp Number Main No. 1202 of 2020) before this Court. By order dated 5.4.2021, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by recording that the respondent no.2-Administrator of Communidades would take appropriate decision in the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and others for alleged encroachments of the property of the Communidade.

4. According to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 they were required to be arrayed as defendants in the suits because Written Statements filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/Communidade through the attorney were not effective and there was every possibility of the Communidade conceding before the trial court, as a consequence of which the petitioners would gain legal status and rights in plots illegally demarcated in the property belonging to the respondent no.1 Communidade. Many of the alleged shortcomings on the part of the respondent no.1 Communidade and its attorney were highlighted before the trial Court. The said applications filed in the suits were opposed by the petitioners as well as the respondent no.1 Communidade.

5. But, by the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the applications, holding that presence of the respondent no.3 and 4 as defendants in the said suits was necessary for effectively deciding the issues that would arise for adjudication in the said suits.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the trial Court, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions in which notices were issued and the respondents entered appearance. The Writ Petitions were heard finally.

7. Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these Writ Petitions submitted that while passing the impugned orders the trial Court had wrongly applied the principles governing exercise of power by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, concerning addition of parties. It was submitted that respondent nos. 3 and 4 in these Writ Petitions were neither necessary nor proper parties. Me