JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Petition arises out of a challenge set up by Petitioner-son to the order dated 10 January 2022 passed by the 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Pune allowing application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (parents) at Exhibit-62 by which Court has directed the son to add his parents as parties to son’s suit.

2. Brief facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details are as under:

The suit property bearing Gat No. 570/2 admeasuring 48 Ares situated at Village-Kolwadi, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune was originally owned by one Shri Laxman Bhairu Bhole and Others. The same was purchased by Shri Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh by way of registered sale-deed dated 23 September 1986. Shortly after the purchase transaction, Shri Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh sold the suit land in the name of Petitioner-Plaintiff by way of registered sale-deed dated 26 November 1992. Petitioner-Plaintiff claims that he was put in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land.

3. By way of registered sale-deed dated 3 October 2018, the legal representatives of Shri Kashinath Barku Bhalsingh (Respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.5) sold the suit land in the name of Respondent/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioner-plaintiff therefore filed Regular Civil Suit No. 348/2019 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 26 November 1992. He sought a further declaration that the sale-deed dated 13 October 2018 executed by Respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.5 in favour of Respondent/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was not binding on them. Petitioner/Plaintiff later decided to enter into compromise deed with Respondent/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and accordingly a compromise agreement was executed on 1 April 2021, under which Petitioner-plaintiff decided to give up his rights in respect of the suit land for consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are Petitioner’s father and mother respectively. After noticing that Petitioner was compromising the suit with Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, they filed application under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) on 8 June 2021 seeking their impleadment as Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 to the suit. In their application, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 averred that the suit property was actually purchased by the father (Respondent no. 5) in the year 1992 in the name of Petitioner-plaintiff, who was merely 11 years old at that time. That the suit was also instituted by the family in the name of Petitioner-plaintiff, as the sale-deed stood in his name. That a compromise was entered between the son and parents on 25 August 2019 under which, Petitioner-plaintiff agreed to gift various properties (including the suit property) in the name of his mother and for that purpose executed a Power of Attorney in father’s name. That some of the gift deeds were executed and before gift-deed of the suit property could be executed, Petitioner-plaintiff surreptitiously entered into compromise deed with Respondents/Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

5. Petitioner-plaintiff resisted the impleadment application of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by filing reply. The Trial Court proceeded to allow the application of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by order dated 10 January 2022 directing Petitioner-plaintiff to add Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as party to the suit and to carry out necessary amendment to that effect. The order dated 10 January 2022 is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

6. Appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Kanetkar the learned counsel would submit that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not necessary parties to the suit. That Suit filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff does not and cannot involve the issue of ownership by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit property. That entry of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit would completely alter the nature of litigation. That if Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claim any r