JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th August, 2022 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.8 of 2021 rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under Section 11 and Order-VII, Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has tendered list of dates and events, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for Petitioner, from which the following facts are discerned:

The property in question are lands bearing Survey No. 26/8+9+10 admeasuring 80-R and Survey No. 31/2/8 admeasuring 70- R. The said property was originally owned by one Pandu Piraji Lonkar. After his demise, the property devolved upon his five sons, namely, Ganpat, Shripatrao, Bahiroba, Maruti and Rambhau. Maruti instituted Regular Civil Suit No.19 of 1911 for partition of the ancestral property in which, a preliminary decree was drawn. After the death of Rambhau, the property devolved upon his daughters i.e Shantabai and Anjanabai Damdhere. In the final decree application in Regular Civil Suit No 19 of 1911, compromise terms came to be executed and 3/5th share was given to the daughters of Rambhau. In the year 1987, the daughters of Rambhau, i.e. Shantabai and Anjanabai filed Regular Civil Suit No.1147 of 1987 for partition, which came to be decreed and said Shantabai and Anajabai were held entitled to 3/5th share. The decree was challenged upto the Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition came to be rejected in the year 2013.

3. In the interregnum, by Will dated 26th December, 2004, Anjanabai bequeathed the property in favour of respondent No.2 herein, i.e. Dipak Shivram Pathare. On 4th March, 2005 Anjanabai expired, leaving behind 4 sons and 2 daughters. On 28th March, 2005, Mutation Entry No.8362 was effected in the name of Respondent No.2 in the revenue records. On 3rd October, 2005, respondent No.2 executed a registered development agreement and power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 herein, i.e. City Corporation Limited, for a total consideration of Rs.47 lakh. On 22nd November, 2013, saledeed was executed between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. On 2nd December, 2013, Mutation Entry No.12367 came to be effected in name of Respondent No 1 in the revenue records.

4. On 16th December, 2013, respondent No.2 filed Special Civil Suit No.1669 of 2013 against respondent no.1 seeking cancellation of the development agreement, power of attorney and sale-deed. On 14th October, 2014, the application for temporary injunction came to be dismissed.

5. In parallel proceedings, the Petitioner challenged the Mutation Entry No.8362 recording the name of Respondent No.2 by way of RTS Appeal No.126 of 2016, on the basis of Will dated 17th February, 2005 executed by Anjanabai in favour of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the RTS Appeal on 29th August, 2016, which came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector. On 26th December, 2016, the appeal of petitioner came to be allowed and Mutation Entry No.13580 was effected in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was not a party to this revenue proceeding and there was no challenge to the Mutation Entry No.12367 whereby the name of respondent No.1 was recorded in the 7/12 extract. After obtaining knowledge of the order dated 26th December, 2016 passed by the Additional Collector, respondent No.1 filed Revision No.157 of 2017 before the Divisional Commissioner, which came to be allowed and Mutation Entry No.13580 recording the name of Petitioner in revenue records was cancelled.

6. On 1st August, 2017, respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1275 of 2017 challenging the Will dated 17th February, 2005 propounded by the Petitioner. The application for temporary injunction came to be allowed on 23rd January, 2018 restraining the petitioner from creating third party rights and disturbing the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit property.

7. On 19th November, 2018, the petitioner filed MC