JUDGMENT :

Order dated 28/01/2016 passed below Exhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar is sought to be challenged in the present petition whereby the application filed by the defendant at Exh.38 came to be allowed and proposed defendant therein is ordered to be joined as defendant No.7 in the suit.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner–org. plaintiff claims that he has become owner of the NA land bearing Survey/Block No.71 Paiki ad-measuring 5935 square meters of Village Kosamdi, Tal. Ankleshwar by purchasing it from its erstwhile owner who arraigned as respondent nos.3 to 6 through their power of attorney, by way of registered sale-deed dated 09/12/2010 bearing registered sale-deed no.9576. It is further the case of the petitioner that since they have purchased this NA land through registered sale-deed, they also got the possession and hold it since 2010. One third party claim the title and possession over this NA land by way of filing SCS No.55 of 2011 and in the said suit original owners i.e. respondents No.3 to 6 and power of attorney confirms the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. However, later on, as per the case of the petitioner, the revenue authority; without hearing the petitioner cancelled the mutation entry. During pendency of the revenue proceeding, respondents No.3 to 6 who is alleged to have overreached the process and executed the sale-deed in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 dated 30/01/2013 qua the NA land. According to the petitioner, the said act was prejudicial to the title, interest and possession of the petitioner and therefore SCS No.14 of 2015 was filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar challenging the legality and validity of the petitioner’s sale-deed dated 30/01/2013 executed inter se between respondents no.3 to 6 and respondents nos.1 and 2.

2.1 Application at Exh.38 under O.1 R.10 of the CPC was filed by the third party to join him as party respondent in the suit claiming that he is the power of attorney of the original owner. The petitioner-plaintiff in the suit has resisted the entry of the third party into the suit; but the learned Court below allowed the said application Exh.38 and permitted the third party to join the proceedings of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, petitioner – plaintiff has filed this petition.

3. In the background of the fact when this petition was filed on 26/02/2016, this Court has passed the following order:

“Leave to add respondent No.7 as proposed party.

Prima-facie, it appears that proposed party namely Mr. Nitin Harikrushna Dixit, who is power of attorney holder of original defendant Nos.3 to 6 in the present suit were also party defendants in the Special Civil Suit No.55 of 2011, which was instituted by one Mr.Mazun Rustamji. In the said suit, the said proposed party in his reply and more particularly para-4 thereof, he has asserted that he has executed sale deed in favour of present petitioner on 09.12.2010 and that too with the consent of defendant Nos.3 to 6. Further, the subject matter of present Special Civil Suit No.14 of 2015 is not the said sale deed dated 09.12.2010, but the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.14 of 2015 has challenged the subsequent sale deed executed by original defendant No.3 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 30.01.2013.

In nutshell, the said third party has nothing to do with the execution and registration of sale deed dated 30.01.2013 and further, sale deed in favour of present petitioner-original plaintiff as a power of attorne