The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of joining necessary parties for a complete and final decision on the matter in dispute, as well as the discretion of the court to order the addition or substitution of parties at any stage of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner – original defendant No. 1 challenging the orders dated 20.07.2019 and 05.07.2018, respectively passed below exhs. 129 and 67 in HRP Suit No. 2553 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Court No. 10, Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad. By application exh. 67 under O.1 R.10(2), O.6 R.17 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) it was prayed to join the applicant as a party defendant being proper and necessary party in the suit. It was also prayed to delete existing defendants of the suit in question, who are the legal heirs and representative of the original deceased defendant. The said application came to be allowed in part and the applicant therein (present respondent No. 2) was permitted to be joined as party defendant No. 2 in the suit. Further, application exh. 129 was filed by the plaintiff under O.6 R.17 of the CPC for amendment of plaint, which also came to be allowed.

2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval V. Shah for the respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval V. Shah for the respondents.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently and fervently argued that the present petitioners are the heirs of original deceased original defendant No. 1 namely - Vasudevbhai Purohit, whereas, the respondents herein are the original plaintiff and original defendant No. 2 in the suit, respectively. He further submitted that the suit in question is filed by the plaintiff for vacating the suit premises and getting possession of the suit property and for the arrears of rent of Rs.69,600/-. In the said suit, the petitioners – defendants filed written statement on 23.04.2007. The learned advocate for the petitioners – defendants submitted that after a lapse of more than 10 years, an application, exh. 67, under O.1 R.10(2) of the CPC came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 herein - original defendant No. 2 for joining her as a party defendant in the suit in question. He further submitted that after the aforesaid application exh. 67 for joining party came to be allowed by an order dated 05.07.2018, an amendment application, exh. 129 under O.6 R.17 CPC, was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein – original plaintiff on 13.02.2019, which also came to be allowed by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has, without going into the merits and without verifying the documentary evidence on record, has passed the impugned orders. He further submitted that without ascertaining the veracity and credential of the document (Dissolution of Partnership Deed) has passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2018. Further, it is submitted that by allowing such amendment (by way of exh. 129), the nature of the suit gets changed, which is against the settled principles of law.

3.2 Inviting attention of the Court to the order dated 05.07.2018 passed below application exh. 67 for joining as a party defendant, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Judge has observed therein that, 'there was partnership between the present deceased defendant Vasudev Purohit and proposed party Sushilaben as well as other partners and that partnership was dissolved in the year 2008 and the proposed party became the proprietor of Prakash Transport Co. i.e. the plaintiff. This document can also be proved at later stage. The registration certificate of Prakash Transport Co. vide Mark-74/2 is showing the registration place at Deesa'. It is also observed that, 'Therefore, if company is registered in Deesa and it's godown (rent premises) is situated in Ahmedabad, then it makes no serious damage to the present application. Furthermore, the plaintiff, himself, has shown address of rent premises in Ahmedabad and deceased de