Plaintiffs have an unqualified right to abandon parts of their claims without court permission, overriding objections from co-defendants regarding counter-claims.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. These three petitions assail the legality, propriety and correctness of a common order on applications (Exh. 76 and 89) in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2009, dated 18^th December, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Panvel, whereby the application (Exh. 76) preferred by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1277/2024 and 1278/2024 – the plaintiffs, to delete the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1297/2024 – Defendant No. 5 from the array of the defendants, and Plot No. 73, Sector No. 03, Ulwe Node (“the suit plot”) from the suit properties, came to be rejected and the application (Exh. 89) preferred by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – Defendant Nos 1 to 4 seeking amendment in the written statement so as to also file a counter- claim against the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5, came to be allowed.

3. Though there have been multiple proceedings in respect of the suit plot, yet, the background facts necessary for the determination of these petitions can be summarized as under:

3.1 Late Narayan Hari Naik, was the father of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, and Smt. Shakuntala Padaji Mhatre - the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, Smt. Leelabai Tulsidas Mhatre – the predecessor in title of Defendant Nos. 7.4.2. to 7.4.4 and Smt. Girijabai Yashwant Patil – the Defendant No. 8. Late Narayan Naik was the holder of several pieces and parcels of agricultural lands, which were ancestral and joint family properties. Those parcels of land were acquired by CIDCO Limited – Defendant No. 6 and, in lieu thereof, the successor in interest of Late Narayan Naik, being project affected persons, also became entitled to a developed plot under 12.5 % scheme.

3.2 The Defendant nos. 1 to 4 – the sons of Late Narayan Naik, applied for and obtained benefits under the said 12.5% scheme allegedly without disclosing the existence and lawful shares of their above-named sisters. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 entered into transactions with various persons to sale, assign and transfer the plot which was to be allotted under the said scheme, leading to the institution of Regular Civil Suit No. 734/2012, by Pandharinath Shalik Bhoir, and Special Civil Suit No. 472/2008, by Smt. Jagruti Atulbhai Patel.

3.3 CIDCO – Defendant no. 6 executed an agreement to lease in favour of Defendant No. 1 to 4 in respect of plots No. 74 + 73 + 75, Sector 3, Ulwe Nod, admeasuring 3649.91 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, a tripartite agreement came to be executed between the Defendant nos. 1 to 4, Defendant No. 6 - CIDCO and Mr. Chirag Bhanushali – the Defendant No. 5.

3.4 The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2019 seeking a declaration that, the plaintiffs had 1/7th share in the suit properties including the suit Plot No. 73, for partition of their share in the suit properties and the consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit plot.

3.5 In the said suit, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 initially took a stand that they had already transferred the suit plot to Mr. Chirag Bhanushali (D5) and, thus, the suit had become infructuous qua Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In their written statement, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 also contested the claim of the plaintiffs that, their mother had an undivided interest in the suit plot.

3.6 In the meanwhile, Girijabai Yashwant Patil – Defendant No. 8, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 396/2015 against the Defendant Nos. 1 t