Parties cannot be forced into a co-plaintiffs relationship when conflicts of interest exist; a party may be impleaded as a defendant instead.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. R.A. Thorat, learned senior advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Drupad Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4A.

2. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the Petitioners state that Respondent No. 35 who is really a contesting Respondent has been serve3d and this Respondent has also filed his reply in this Petition.

3. The Respondent No. 35 is not present today though the matter is listed on board and even though by order dated 30th November, 2015 this Court in paragraph No. 5 of the order has made it clear that this Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 30th November, 2015 reads thus:

1. Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Gujar, taken up in production board. Heard Mr.R.A.Thorat, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , original plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.8.2015 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Pune below Exh. 547 in Spl. Civil Suit no.1747 of 1995. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application made by respondent no.35, herein, under Order 22, Rule 3 of C.P.C. and directed the petitioners to bring him as a plaintiff on record as a legal heir of the deceased Keraba Hanumant Lokankar. The plaintiffs are also directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of the plaint by bringing him as a plaintiff on Record within limitation.

3. Mr. Thorat submitted that the plaintiff's father Keraba Hanumant Lonkar had instituted Special Civil Suit No.1741 of 1995 for cancellation and declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants no.1 and 2 in favour of defendants no. 3 to 34 are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, among other prayers. He submitted that Ms Parubai Keraba Lonkar, second wife of Keraba, instituted Special Civil Suit No.1741 of 1995 for for permanent injunction and declaration of the Will dated 27.6.2005 executed by Keraba as illegal, null and void.

4. Pending Regular Civil Suit No.1741 of 1995, Keraba died and petitioners filed application for bringing them on record as legatee of deceased Keraba. That application was allowed. Respondent no.35 has filed application Exhibit-547 on the ground that being the son of deceased keraba, he should be brought on record as plaintiff no.2. Mr. Thorat submitted that the petitioners have no objection for bringing him on record as 'defendant' but not as a plaintiff, as the stand of the present petitioners and respondent no.35 is inconsistent. He further states that the next date of hearing in the trial Court is 2.12.2015.

5. In view thereof, list the petition for admission on 10.12.2015. The petitioners shall give private notice to respondent no.35, being the only contesting respondent, as also Advocate representing respondent no.35 in the trial Court by R.P.A.D/Speed Post/Courier and shall file affidavit of service along with acknowledgment before the next date of hearing. The learned Advocate representing the respondent in the trial Court is requested to accept the service. Office shall not accept affidavit of service, unless accompanied by acknowledgment.

5. Parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service, if the respondent fails to appear, the Court will proceed to decide the petition on its own merits.

6. Till the next date, there shall be ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c).

4. The impugned order in the present case directs the impleadment of Respondent No. 35 as co-Plaintiff along with the Petitioners and further proceeds