The court ruled that only necessary parties may be added to a suit, and the principle of dominus litis limits parties to those without whom effective adjudication cannot occur.

JUDGMENT :

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for addition of parties in Regular Civil Suit no.134 of 2023.

3. The respondent no.1 has filed the suit against the respondent no.2 seeking declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the notice of demolition dated 01.03.2023 with respect to unauthorised construction made by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2-defendant in the suit filed his written statement and the suit was proceeded. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners’ filed application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code seeking their impleadment as parties to the suit by alleging that they are owners of the suit property. This application was opposed by the original plaintiff and it came to be rejected by order dated 18.04.2024 which is subjected to challenge by way of instant petition.

4. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the suit property i.e. property bearing Nazul Plot Nos.6/1, 7/1, 12, 13, 14/109 by virtue of sale-deed dated 14.10.2022 and there are mutation entries in theirnames. Hesubmittedthatthesuit although filed against the Municipal Corporation, being with respect to the property belonging to the petitioners, they are the necessary parties and their application for joining as parties to the suit ought to have been allowed. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aliji Momonji & Co. Versus Lalji Mavji & Others [ (1996) 5 SCC 379 ], the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Babulal Avasthi Versus Munna Nizamuddin Khan & Another [(2024) 2 Mah.LJ 322] and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Babarao Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others [Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022]. By relying on these judgments, he submitted that the petitioners are having interest as owners in the suit property and they ought to have been joined as parties to the suit since in the event of any order of demolition of the building, the right, title and interest of the petitioners will be directly affected. By referring to the judgment in Aliji Momonji & Co. (supra), he submitted that the interest of the petitioners need to be protected since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has even protected the interest of the landlords therein.

5. Per Contra, Shri S.A. Mohta, counsel for the respondent no.1, the original plaintiff strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any right to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit as the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be directed to add any person to the suit. He also submitted that the suit is with respect to the adjudication of the rights between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation and there is no question of adjudication of any right between the original plaintiff and the interveners.

In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Others [ (2020) 14 SCC 392 ] and submitted that the position of law is laid down that when the Court is not called upon to adjudicate the rights between two parties in relation to the suit property, any dispute amongst them can be decided by way of separate suit since the