JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. In a suit filed by the petitioners, i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 418 of 2023, challenging the notice dated 10/03/2023 (Page 38) issued by the respondent No. 2 under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as “MRTP Act”) to the respondent No. 3, an application for impleadment was filed by the respondent No. 3, who is the owner of the property in question in which the petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor. This application is at Ex.19 and has been allowed by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 21/11/2023 (Page 92).

4. Mr. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is unjustified inasmuch as, it does not consider the parameters of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) and specifically the position that the presence of the respondent No. 3 is not necessary for the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, on account of which, the impugned orde