In specific performance actions, a power of attorney holder does not automatically constitute a necessary party unless there is evidence of property interest; late amendments are permissible only with due diligence.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

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

2. As the challenge in these Petitions is to the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, in the same Suit, i.e., Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 2010 and the determination of one bears upon the other, the Petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The background facts necessary for the determination of these Petitions can be stated as under:

3.1 The properties bearing Survey Nos. 78/13, 78/17 and 78/16 situated at village Dasak, District Nashik, more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the Plaint, are the ancestral properties of the Defendants - Respondents.

3.2 The Defendants intended to sell the suit properties. On 24^th March 2000 and 5^th May 2000, the Defendants executed three Agreement for Sale in favour of the Petitioner. The consideration was accepted by the Defendants in cash and by way of cheques. Sakharam Waman Chandramore, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, had acknowledged the responsibility to complete the transaction and execute the conveyance. In the year 2007, Sakharam Chandramore had filed an Application before the District Collector to grant permission to transfer the suit properties. However, Sakharam passed away.

3.3 The Defendants thereafter avoided to complete the transaction and execute conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, the permission to transfer the suit properties could not be obtained from the District Collector. Despite notice dated 24^th March 2009, the Defendants failed and refused to execute the conveyance. Hence the suit for specific performance of the contract contained in the Agreements for Sale dated 24^th March 2000 and 5^th May 2000.

3.4 During the pendency of the said Suit, the Plaintiff filed an Application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 21^st June 2012, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to allow the Application and the Defendants were restrained from alienating or otherwise creating any third party interest in, or encumbrance over, the suit properties till the final decision of the Suit.

3.5 Asserting that despite the order of temporary injunction, the Defendants have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Deepaksingh Ashoksingh Pardeshi on 19^th January 2018 and thereby authorised the said Power of Attorney holder to remove the impediment in the transfer of the suit lands by obtaining necessary permission and execute and register instruments, the Petitioner filed two Applications. First, an Application to implead the said Power of Attorney holder Deepaksingh Pardeshi as a party-Defendant to the Suit under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) (Exhibit “232”) and, second, an Application to amend the Plaint under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code (Exhibit “245”) so as to bring the subsequent developments in the form of execution of the Power of Attorney in favour of said Deepaksingh Pardeshi and the alleged encroachment committed by the Defendants over the suit properties.

3.6 By an order dated 7^th July 2025, the Application for impleadment of Deepaksingh Pardeshi (Exhibit “232”) came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge, opining inter alia that the Defendants claimed that the Power of Attorney was not in operation and, in any event, the Power of Attorney cannot be sued in his personal capacity, de hors the executant. Thus, the third party was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Suit.

3.7 Being