The presence of a party in a proceeding is necessary if it is found to be necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating and settling the questions involved in the suit.

JUDGMENT :

P.C.

1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, (original complainant), has challenged Order dated 20.10.2021, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby an application filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for addition of Communidade of Nerul as a Defendant, at exhibit D-21, has been allowed. Accordingly, the said Communidade is directed to be impleaded as defendant no.3 in the suit.

2. Mr. Padgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Communidade is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. It is submitted that the Petitioner has filed a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction against the Respondents seeking an injunction restraining the Respondents from disturbing the possession of the Petitioner in the suit property, which is said to be located in survey no. 120/1 and 110/9 of Village Panchayat Nerul. The Petitioner has proceeded in the suit on the basis that she is in possession of the suit property as the same was leased to her late husband by the aforesaid Communidade in the year 1967. It is further pointed out that the Respondents had earlier moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Communidade was a necessary party. The said application was dismissed and Civil Revision Application no.53/2019 filed by the Respondents before this Court was also dismissed, thereby confirming the findings of the Trial Court. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the aforesaid Order had attained finality. It is further submitted that the Communidade is not even a proper party in the aforesaid suit, considering the pleadings in the plaint, the prayer sought by the Petitioner and also the pleadings in written statement of the Respondents. Reliance is placed on Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, (2010) 7 SCC 417 and Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 524 to contend that the Respondents could call the responsible Officer/Attorney of the Communidade as a witness in support of their contentions in the pending suit. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the dominus litis and this aspect is also ignored by the Trial Court whilst passing the impugned Order.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that proper appreciation of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, would show that Communidade is certainly a proper party in the suit because the presence of the Communidade is necessary to effectually and completely decide all the questions that arise for consideration in the suit.

4. Learned Counsel invited attention of this Court to the aforesaid pleadings before the Court below as well as certain interim orders passed in the suit to contend that the Communidade is recorded as the owner of the suit property in Form I and XIV and further that the Petitioner is proceeding on the basis that her possession is lawful for the reason that the Communidade purportedly put her late husband in possession of the suit properties on the basis of a lease executed in his favour. It was submitted that if the said stand of the Petitioners was to be tested, the presence of the Communidade was necessary. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Dec.) & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 700 and the Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shanti Sharma vs Shanti Sharma, 2004 2 HLJ 1001.

5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. There can be no quarrel with the proposition adverted to by the learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties in