The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to allow the framing of additional issues in a suit, despite the opposition of the Respondent, when it deems it necessary for proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Gadkari, J.

1. Petitioner, Original Defendant No. 14 in T.E. and R. Suit No. 42/62 of 2009 filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Judgment and Order dated 1st September, 2021 passed in Revision Application No. 95 of 2021, by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai thereby dismissing the said Revision and confirming the Order dated 2nd August, 2021 passed below Exh-601, filed by Petitioner, for framing of additional issues in the said Suit.

2. Heard Mr. Vineet Naik, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. M.M. Vashi, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 5. Perused entire record produced before me.

3. The record reveals that, the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein along with their mother Smt. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri have instituted a suit bearing T.E. and R. Suit No. 42/62 of 2009 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, for eviction of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from the suit property.

The suit property was originally acquired by the members of Baria family, who gave it on lease along with structures standing thereon to Mr. Tarachand N. Jhaveri and Mr. Ratanchand N. Jhaveri in the year 1938. The suit property was inherited by 7 legal heirs of Mr. Tarachand and Mr. Ratanchand namely; (i) Keshrichand (ii) Dilip (iii) Chandrakant (iv) Pratap (v) Kantaben (vi) Vinaben and (vii) Shantilal. The said 7 legal heirs had filed a Suit No. 236 of 1968 in this Court against the Respondent No. 5/Defendant No. 1 for its eviction from the suit premises and for a declaration that, it has no right, title and interest in it. The said suit was decreed in terms of Consent Terms dated 6th July, 1977 and the Respondent No. 5/Defendant No. 1 was accepted as a monthly tenant by the said 7 legal heirs. That, subsequently a declaratory suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 4081 of 1977 was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai against the said 7 legal heirs. The said suit was disposed off by the Court of Small Causes, at Mumbai on the basis of the Consent Terms dated 7th November, 1977. Smt. Kantaben Gajjiwala (Legal heir No. (v) above) passed away on 10th April, 1980 leaving behind her, Smt. Hansa Shah (daughter) and Miss. Lopa Arunkumar Gajjiwala (grand daughter) and other legal heirs. Smt. Hansa Shah received 1.43% of share and Miss. Lopa Gajjiwala received 3.5715% of share in succession from Smt. Kantaben Gajjiwala. Thus, their total share component in the entire suit property constitutes 5.015%. During the pendency of the present suit, Petitioner acquired right, title and interest constituting 5.015% share in the suit property from the said two successors of Smt. Kantaben by executing registered Deeds of Assignments dated 18th March, 2019 and 10th July, 2019 respectively.

After acquiring the said 5.015% share in the suit premises, Petitioner filed an application below Exh-454 in the said suit for joining it as a Plaintiff or in the alternative, as a Defendant. The trial Court rejected the said Application filed below Exh-454 by its Order dated 16th December, 2019. In an Appeal preferred by the Petitioner bearing Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2020, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai while allowing the said Appeal, directed the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to add Petitioner as Defendant in the said suit. The Appellate Bench further directed the Petitioner to appear in the said suit as Defendant on or before 2nd March, 2020 and submit its written statement on or before 6th March, 2020. It appears from record that, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. original Plaintiffs did not effect necessary amendment to implead Petitioner as Defendant No. 14 within stipulated period. However, Petitioner filed its written statement within the period of limitation as prescribed by the