{"id":202525,"date":"2011-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-17T11:35:26","modified_gmt":"2017-01-17T06:05:26","slug":"smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                   1\n                                                                cra105.06\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n           CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2006\n\n\n      1.    Smt. Sushil Kaur W\/o Sukhbirsingh\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n            Chhatwal, Aged : 56 years, Occ :\n            Household, R\/o Raj Tara Bungalow,\n            Osmanpura, Aurangabad.\n      2.    Gurbirsingh    S\/o    Sukhbirsingh\n\n\n\n\n                             \n            Chhatwal, Age : 40 years, Occ :\n            Business, R\/o As above.\n      3.\n                \n            Sathirsingh    S\/o    Sukhbirsingh\n            Chhatwal, Age : 38 years, Occ :\n            Business, R\/o As above.\n               \n                                                    ..PETITIONERS\n                        -VERSUS-\n      1.    M\/s Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing\n            Factory, Jaffar Gate, Aurangabad,\n      \n\n\n            Through its G.P.A. Kantilal S\/o\n            Hiralal Mithawala, Age : 70 years,\n   \n\n\n\n            Occ : Service, R\/o Supari Hanuman\n            Road, Aurangabad.\n      2.    Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n\n            through its Commissioner.\n                                                  ..RESPONDENTS\n\n                            ...\n     Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for applicants.\n     \u064dShri P.S. Sonpethkar, advocate for respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n      no.1\n                            ...\n\n\n                                       CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,J.\n\n                          Reserved on : 23rd August, 2011\n                      Pronounced on : 22nd September, 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::\n                                      2\n                                                                    cra105.06\n\n     : JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     1.     This Civil Revision Application is filed<\/p>\n
     aggrieved by the order passed on application<\/p>\n
     below Exhibit-10 in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177<\/p>\n
     of 2006 dated 1st December, 2006 by the Adhoc<\/p>\n
     Additional District Judge-3, Aurangabad.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The<\/p>\n
                   revision     applicants         herein        are      the<\/p>\n
     original plaintiffs, who have filed the suit<\/p>\n
     against       the     respondent       no.2        praying           for<\/p>\n
     perpetual          injunction       from    demolishing              the<\/p>\n
     construction on the suit land. In the said<\/p>\n
     suit,        the     revision       applicants           filed         an<\/p>\n
     application for temporary injunction. However,<\/p>\n
     same was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
            Being       aggrieved        with     the       same,         the<\/p>\n
     applicants filed Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of<\/p>\n
     2006    before       the   District        Court      along        with<\/p>\n
     application            Exhibit-5            for           temporary<\/p>\n
     injunction.\n<\/p>\n
            The     respondent       no.1       herein       thereafter<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                3<\/span>
\n                                                              cra105.06<\/p>\n
     filed application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of<\/p>\n
     Code   of    Civil   Procedure      for       addition           of<\/p>\n
     parties in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
     The avernments in the said application filed<\/p>\n
     by the respondent no.1 herein are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                 ” 1. That, the applicant being owner
\n                 and possessor of the property and
\n              ig portion of Survey No. 57, having
\n                 Municipal No.4-18-47\/1, C.T.S. No.
\n                 13162 and 13163, situated at Jafar
\n                 Gate, Aurangabad. They filed the suit<\/p>\n
                 bearing R.C.S. No. 218\/1972 for
\n                 possession of a room admeasuring 10′
\n                 X 10′ and for perpetual injunction
\n                 for the rest of portion against (1)<\/p>\n
                 Nutanbai,    (2)    Ravelsingh,   (3)
\n                 Pratpsingh and (4) Mir Maqsood Ali<\/p>\n
                 Khan. After hearing the suit on
\n                 merit, it came to be decreed by the
\n                 Hon’ble 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
\n                 Division, at Aurangabad, by its<\/p>\n
                 Judgment and Decree dated 30.9.1975.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 The defendnats challenged said decree
\n                 by filing R.C.A. No. 195\/1975 in the
\n                 Hon’ble District Court, Aurangabad,
\n                 and said appeal came to be allowed on
\n                 25.10.1978. Against the said decree<\/p>\n
                 of Appellate Court, the present
\n                 applicant preferred IInd Appeal No.
\n                 189\/1979 in the Hon’ble High Court
\n                 and said appeal came to be allowed on
\n                 16.12.1991, but, due to interpolation
\n                 in the said judgment in High Court,
\n                 the applicant filed C.A. No. 415\/2003
\n                 for   correction   of   Judgment  and
\n                 deletion of interpolation. In said<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                       4<\/span>
\n                                                  cra105.06<\/p>\n
       C.A. the husband of the plaintiff No.<\/p>\n
       1 Sukhbirsingh, who purchased said
\n       property during pendency of the suit<\/p>\n
       was also unpleaded as party and after
\n       hearing him, C.A. No. 415\/2003 came
\n       to   be    allowed   on    21.09.2004.\n<\/p>\n
       Sukhbirsingh            unsuccessfully
\n       challenged the said order by filing<\/p>\n
       S.L.P. No. 21339\/2004 in Hon’ble
\n       Supreme Court of India.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   That,     the     applicant    filed<\/p>\n
       Reuglar Darkhast No. 104\/1994, for
\n       execution of decree passed in R.C.S.\n<\/p>\n
       No. 218\/1972 and confirmed by Hon’ble
\n       High Court. The applicant came to
\n       know that the husband of present
\n       plaintiff no.1 is intending to start<\/p>\n
       construction on suit property and
\n       therefore, he filed application for
\n       temporary     injunction     restraining
\n       Sukhbirsingh       and     others     and<\/p>\n
       defendants from changing the nature
\n       of suit property or alienating the<\/p>\n
       said property or creating third party
\n       interest on 6.7.2005. The Hon’ble 5th
\n       Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,
\n       Aurangabad, after hearing pleased to<\/p>\n
       allow the application on 22.8.2005.\n<\/p>\n
       During    the     pendency     of    said\n       application     status-quo    order   was\n<\/pre>\n
       passed on 8.7.2005. In spite of
\n       injunction order, Sukhbirsingh and
\n       after    his     demise    the    present<\/p>\n
       plaintiffs continued the construction
\n       work and therefore, the applicant
\n       filed an application U\/o 39 Rule 2-A
\n       of Civil Procedure Code, which is
\n       pending.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   As such, the construction work
\n       of    the   plaintiffs   is   during
\n       enforcement   of   injunction  order<\/p>\n
                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                     5<\/span>
\n                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
       passed by the Court at the instance<\/p>\n
       of the defendants as such, the
\n       applicant is interested party being<\/p>\n
       title holder of the suit property.
\n       The plaintiffs have hided all above
\n       referred material facts from the
\n       Hon’ble 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
\n       Division, Aurangabad, and tried to<\/p>\n
       obtain equitable relief of temporary
\n       and    perpetual     injunction    by
\n       misguiding the Hon’ble Court. When,
\n       the applicant came to know about<\/p>\n
       filing   of   the  said    suit,  the
\n       applicant also filed application for<\/p>\n
       adding him as party in R.C.S. No.
\n       870\/2006 and the said application is
\n       for consideration before the said
\n       Court.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   However, the present appellant\/
\n       original plaintiff filed appeal in
\n       this   Hon’ble   Court   and   thereby<\/p>\n
       challenging the order of 2nd Joint
\n       Civil    Judge,    Senior    Division,<\/p>\n
       Aurangabad, issuing show cause notice
\n       and not granting interim relief. The
\n       said appeal is also fixed for final
\n       hearing in this Hon’ble Court. As<\/p>\n
       such, the applicant being title
\n       holder and interested party in the
\n       suit and the applicant wanted to
\n       protect the illegal construction made
\n       by her by violating the order of
\n       injunction and that is also on the<\/p>\n
       property of the applicant. As such,
\n       the applicant may kindly be added as
\n       party to this appeal. The applicant
\n       is interested party in the present
\n       appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                HENCE, IT IS PRAYED THAT :\n<\/p>\n
           This application may kindly be<\/p>\n
                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6<\/span>
\n                                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
                 allowed and the applicant may be<\/p>\n
                 added as respondent in the present
\n                 appeal and oblige.”\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The     said     application          filed         by       the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 herein was allowed by Adhoc<\/p>\n
     Additional      District          Judge-3,           Aurangabad<\/p>\n
     thereby     directing       the    revision          applicants<\/p>\n
     herein, to add respondent no.1 as defendant in<\/p>\n
     appeal<\/p>\n
                within   three    days      from     the      date       of<\/p>\n
     order. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It is the case of the revision applicants<\/p>\n
     that late Sukhbirsingh Tarasingh Chatwal, the<\/p>\n
     husband of revision applicant no.1 and father<\/p>\n
     of applicant nos. 2 and 3, was the owner and<\/p>\n
     possessor of property bearing CTS no. 13163<\/p>\n
     admeasuring 1411.5 Sq. Meters (part of Survey<\/p>\n
     no. 56) situated at Bahadurpura, Jalna Road,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad.         Late     Sukhbirsingh               was         in<\/p>\n
     possession of the property since 1971. N.A.\n<\/p>\n
     permission    was    granted      by   the      Collector           on<\/p>\n
     18th September, 1992. Since, 1979, there was<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span>
\n                                                                     cra105.06<\/p>\n
     an   entry     of    late    Sukhbirsingh           in     the      P.R.\n<\/p>\n
     card.     In        1992,        late    Sukhbirsingh               also<\/p>\n
     constructed a compound wall for protection of<\/p>\n
     the suit property. He submitted a plan for<\/p>\n
     construction              permission.          However,               the<\/p>\n
     respondent          no.2      herein        neither            granted<\/p>\n
     permission          nor     rejected        the        permission,<\/p>\n
     under<\/p>\n
     therefore, in view of the deeming provision<\/p>\n
              the        Maharashtra         Regional          and       Town<\/p>\n
     Planning Act, there is a deemed permission,<\/p>\n
     and therefore, the construction of building as<\/p>\n
     per the plan was started. Sukhbirsingh died on<\/p>\n
     15.04.2005      and        the    names      of      the       present<\/p>\n
     applicants have been recorded as owners of the<\/p>\n
     property       being         legal        heirs           of        late<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh. In the meanwhile, the respondent<\/p>\n
     no.2     sanctioned           the       plan       and         granted<\/p>\n
     permission to construct the building as per<\/p>\n
     the plan by its order dated 23rd June, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
            After the death of late Sukhbirsingh, the<\/p>\n
     names of the revision applicants are recorded<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span>
\n                                                                        cra105.06<\/p>\n
     in the city survey record. It is the case of<\/p>\n
     the applicants that some ill-motivated people<\/p>\n
     have    made       complaint       to    the     respondent            no.2<\/p>\n
     stating that this construction is illegal and<\/p>\n
     it be demolished.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent no.2 thereafter issued the<\/p>\n
     notice     ig to     the     revision<\/p>\n
     applicants replied the said notice and pointed
\n                                                    applicants.               The<\/p>\n
     out that they have not committed any illegal<\/p>\n
     act     nor        they     have        violated        construction<\/p>\n
     permission. It is further submitted that the<\/p>\n
     respondent         no.2     by     ignoring        the      permission<\/p>\n
     granted by its own authority is now bent upon<\/p>\n
     to demolish the construction at the behest of<\/p>\n
     some     ill-motivated            persons.        Therefore,             the<\/p>\n
     applicants herein filed the Civil Suit bearing<\/p>\n
     Regular Civil Suit No. 870 of 2006 in the<\/p>\n
     Court     of        Civil        Judge,       Senior          Division,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad. It is submitted that application<\/p>\n
     for     temporary          injunction         was       also        filed.\n<\/p>\n
     However, same came to be rejected by the Civil<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                9<\/span>
\n                                                             cra105.06<\/p>\n
     Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     the applicants filed Misc. Civil Appeal before<\/p>\n
     the     District     Judge,       Aurangabad.                 The<\/p>\n
     application for temporary injunction was also<\/p>\n
     filed. It is the case of the applicants that<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.1 without there being any<\/p>\n
     concern with the dispute in the suit, made<\/p>\n
     application on flimsy grounds and prayed for<\/p>\n
     adding it as party respondent in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In fact, the respondent no.1 has no concern<\/p>\n
     with the property in question.\n<\/p>\n
           The say was filed by the applicants to the<\/p>\n
     application filed by the respondent no.1 for<\/p>\n
     adding him as party stating therein that such<\/p>\n
     application     is    not       maintainable.                 The<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs themselves are the masters of their<\/p>\n
     suit and they can not be compelled to add any<\/p>\n
     party to the litigation. It is submitted that<\/p>\n
     the   applicants   have   not   claimed         any      relief<\/p>\n
     against the respondent no.1 and the applicants<\/p>\n
     carrying out the construction as per the plan<\/p>\n
                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                  10<\/span>
\n                                                                cra105.06<\/p>\n
     submitted     and      sanction        granted          by       the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 herein. It is further the case<\/p>\n
     of the applicants that when there is no relief<\/p>\n
     prayed against the respondent no.1, directing<\/p>\n
     the applicants to add the respondent no.1 as<\/p>\n
     party in the appeal itself is abuse of process<\/p>\n
     of    law    and     further      it      would         add        to<\/p>\n
     complications. It is submitted that no person<\/p>\n
     can be forced to litigate against the person<\/p>\n
     who is not concerned with the subject matter<\/p>\n
     of the suit. It is further submitted that the<\/p>\n
     respondent    no.1    is   neither      to     gain       nor      to<\/p>\n
     loose in the litigation pending between the<\/p>\n
     applicants and the respondent no.2. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     for   all   these     reasons,    the      impugned           order<\/p>\n
     allowing application of           the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
     and directing the revision applicants to add<\/p>\n
     him as party defendant in the suit, ought not<\/p>\n
     to have been passed by the Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    The   learned    counsel     appearing            for      the<\/p>\n
     revision applicants submits that before filing<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                  11<\/span>
\n                                                                   cra105.06<\/p>\n
     of suit bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 218 of<\/p>\n
     1997, the property of the respondents was sold<\/p>\n
     to one Narsing Kandi by registered sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
     However, when the respondent no.1 firm moved<\/p>\n
     Execution Petition no. 104 of 1994, said Kandi<\/p>\n
     has also moved Execution Petition no. 166 of<\/p>\n
     1993 pursuant to the alleged Sale Deed. Thus,<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.1 has no concern with the<\/p>\n
     said property in suit. It is submitted that<\/p>\n
     the Civil Suit bearing no. 218 of 1972 was<\/p>\n
     filed    by   respondents       for    possession            of     two<\/p>\n
     huts admeasuring 10 feet X 10 feet abutting to<\/p>\n
     Jalna Road in Survey no. 57 and for injunction<\/p>\n
     not to disturb the possession over the suit<\/p>\n
     land. The respondents have no concern with the<\/p>\n
     property bearing CTS no. 13163. By suppressing<\/p>\n
     material facts and by misrepresentation the<\/p>\n
     suit came to be filed only with an intention<\/p>\n
     to grab the property when in fact they have no<\/p>\n
     concern whatsoever with the property owned by<\/p>\n
     the     applicants.   It    is        submitted          that       the<\/p>\n
     property      mentioned    in    the     prayer        clause         is<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span>
\n                                                                     cra105.06<\/p>\n
     totally different than the property belonging<\/p>\n
     to the applicants. Further, in the entire suit<\/p>\n
     CTS number is not mentioned though CTS number<\/p>\n
     is given in the year 1971. It is submitted<\/p>\n
     that the said suit was decreed on the basis of<\/p>\n
     a    Map   Exh.     118,       which    clearly          shows        the<\/p>\n
     property      is     in        Dawoodpura         i.e.         towards<\/p>\n
     southern
\n                  side     of       Jalna    road,<\/p>\n
     property of the applicants is on northern side
\n                                                          whereas          the<\/p>\n
     of   Jalna    Road.       It    is     submitted         that,        the<\/p>\n
     defendants     preferred         appeal.        In     the       Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal, the name of Nutanbai from whom the<\/p>\n
     suit property was purchased, was deleted. It<\/p>\n
     is further submitted that it is pertinent to<\/p>\n
     note that said Sukhbirsingh was never party in<\/p>\n
     the entire suit proceeding, i.e. Regular Civil<\/p>\n
     Suit no. 218 of 1972, Regular Civil Appeal no.\n<\/p>\n
     195 of 1978, Second Appeal no. 189 of 1979 and<\/p>\n
     Civil      Application         no.     415      of      2003.         The<\/p>\n
     judgment delivered in suit is a Judgment in<\/p>\n
     personum       and         therefore,              since            late<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh was not a party to it, it is not<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                  13<\/span>
\n                                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
     binding upon the applicants.\n<\/p>\n
                It is further submitted that as per<\/p>\n
     the record from Registrar of Firms, the firm<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad      Ginning       &     Pressing             Factory,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad was dissolved way back in the year<\/p>\n
     1963   itself    and   more       specifically           on     31st<\/p>\n
     favour<\/p>\n
     March, 1963. The alleged power of attorney in<\/p>\n
              of    Kantilal     Mithawala         given        by     one<\/p>\n
     Minichor      Chinoy   is   false        and       wrong.         Re-\n<\/p>\n
     delegation of power that too, when the firm<\/p>\n
     itself is not in existence is not recognized<\/p>\n
     by law. It is further submitted that at the<\/p>\n
     time of filing of suit, the width of Jalna<\/p>\n
     road was 20 feet, whereas now the width of<\/p>\n
     road is 132 feet. Even now the property of the<\/p>\n
     applicants is 40 feet away from Jalna Road. It<\/p>\n
     is further submitted that the area of suit<\/p>\n
     property shown in the plaint is 15000 feet,<\/p>\n
     whereas, the area shown below Exh. 118 comes<\/p>\n
     to be 14000 feet. The area of CTS No. 13162 is<\/p>\n
     10800 feet, thus, total comes to 25800 feet.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
     However, the decree is only to the extent of<\/p>\n
     14000 feet. On this ground also the property<\/p>\n
     in Regular Civil Suit no. 218 of 1972 and the<\/p>\n
     property in possession of the applicants does<\/p>\n
     not match anywhere.\n<\/p>\n
                 It is further submitted that in the<\/p>\n
     Judgment of Mantralaya in proceedings bearing<\/p>\n
     No. LAND\/3904\/782\/CR123\/L.1\/CR117(12)\/2004\/A &<\/p>\n
     R, it is clearly held that the property is<\/p>\n
     different than suit property bearing Survey<\/p>\n
     no.   57.    It    is    also      held      that        Kantilal<\/p>\n
     Mithawala     does      not   have        valid       power         of<\/p>\n
     attorney. This judgment was given in view of<\/p>\n
     the   judgment     passed     by    this      Court.         It     is<\/p>\n
     submitted that there is a report of Bailiff in<\/p>\n
     the Execution Proceedings at Exhibit-50 that<\/p>\n
     the   property    mentioned        in   prayer       clause         of<\/p>\n
     suit No. 218 of 1972 is not identifiable. It<\/p>\n
     is    further     mentioned        that     the       plot        no.\n<\/p>\n
     4-18-47\/1 i.e. the property of the applicants<\/p>\n
     is on west side of property mentioned in civil<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span>
\n                                                                        cra105.06<\/p>\n
     suit no. 218 of 1972 and it is not concerned<\/p>\n
     with     the     property              involved        in        present<\/p>\n
     proceeding. In no any proceeding including he<\/p>\n
     Execution Petition, the respondent no.1 has<\/p>\n
     ever sought that they have lost possession.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus,    the    respondent          no.1       is   not      necessary<\/p>\n
     party     in     the        proceeding           filed         by       the<\/p>\n
     applicants and hence, the respondent no.1 has<\/p>\n
     no locus standi.\n<\/p>\n
            It is further submitted that the Municipal<\/p>\n
     Corporation          has        filed    affidavit            in      Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition       no.    3628        of     2006.       In     the       said<\/p>\n
     affidavit,       it        is     clearly       stated          by      the<\/p>\n
     Municipal      Corporation             that,    the       Corporation<\/p>\n
     has granted construction permission by                                duly<\/p>\n
     considering the ownership of the applicants.\n<\/p>\n
     It is further submitted that, the respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1 had taken objection and after considering<\/p>\n
     that also, it was found that the applicants<\/p>\n
     are the owners. Hence, the permission granted<\/p>\n
     by the Corporation is by following due process<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                 16<\/span>
\n                                                                cra105.06<\/p>\n
     of law. It is submitted that against the order<\/p>\n
     of Mantralaya, a Writ Petition is filed by<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 and the same is pending and<\/p>\n
     also    there   is    no    stay       by      this         Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, relying upon the avernments made in<\/p>\n
     the Civil Revision Application, grounds raised<\/p>\n
     therein,    Annexures      to   the         said        Revision<\/p>\n
     Application and the written notes of arguments<\/p>\n
     filed by the applicants, the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing for the revision applicants would<\/p>\n
     submit that this Revision Application deserves<\/p>\n
     to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     On the other hand, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted<\/p>\n
     that Revision Application filed against the<\/p>\n
     order    allowing    the   addition         of      party        and<\/p>\n
     therefore, the order is interlocutory and no<\/p>\n
     Civil    Revision    Application       is     maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     Because of the order impugned in the Civil<\/p>\n
     Revision Application, the proceedings before<\/p>\n
     the Lower Court are not likely to be decided<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         17<\/span>
\n                                                                       cra105.06<\/p>\n
     finally. There is also no final decision in<\/p>\n
     the case. Thus, at the outset, it is submitted<\/p>\n
     that    the    Civil       Revision       Application            is     not<\/p>\n
     maintainable         and    there        is    no      question           of<\/p>\n
     hearing on merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel further submitted that<\/p>\n
     the
\n             respondent         no.1     Aurangabad<\/p>\n
     Pressing Factory had filed Civil Suit bearing
\n                                                               Ginning           &<\/p>\n
     Regular Civil Suit no. 218 of 1972 before the<\/p>\n
     Civil     Judge,       Junior           Division,          Aurangabad<\/p>\n
     against       one    Nutanbai       and       three      others         for<\/p>\n
     injunction and declaration of ownership. The<\/p>\n
     plaintiff had claimed that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
     owner     of    the    land        survey      no.       57      bearing<\/p>\n
     Municipal No. 4-18-47\/1 admeasuring 19A 8 G<\/p>\n
     situated        at         Jafar        Gate,          Bahadurpura,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad. It is further submitted that as<\/p>\n
     the defendant in the said suit had tried to<\/p>\n
     encroach over portion of survey no. 57 and<\/p>\n
     erected hut of 10 ft. x 10 ft., the suit was<\/p>\n
     filed    claiming      injunction             on    the       basis       of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     18<\/span>
\n                                                                      cra105.06<\/p>\n
     title. The learned Judge has framed issues and<\/p>\n
     held that the plaintiff i.e. respondent no.1<\/p>\n
     herein, is owner of the suit property. The<\/p>\n
     learned counsel appearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1 invited my attention to the copy of the<\/p>\n
     judgment in Regular Civil Suit 218 of 1972,<\/p>\n
     which is annexed with the written notes of<\/p>\n
     i.e.\n<\/p>\n
     arguments. It is proved that, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
             respondent      no.1,       is     owner        and       is     in<\/p>\n
     possession of the suit property and granting<\/p>\n
     decree      for   injunction        and     also       recovery          of<\/p>\n
     possession of property admeasuring 10 ft x 10<\/p>\n
     ft. is sought by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
            It   is    submitted     that        aggrieved           by     the<\/p>\n
     judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit no.\n<\/p>\n
     218 of 1972, the Regular Civil Appeal no. 195<\/p>\n
     of 1975 was filed before the District Court,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad        and   same    came          to      be      allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Against that, the plaintiff had filed Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal no. 189 of 1979 before this Court. It<\/p>\n
     is     submitted        that        by        judgment              dated<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     19<\/span>
\n                                                                  cra105.06<\/p>\n
     16.12.1991, this Court has allowed the Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal and restored the decree of the trial<\/p>\n
     Court.        Appeal     was   allowed         in       entirety.\n<\/p>\n
     However, there was interpolation and tampering<\/p>\n
     in the judgment. Para No. 17A on page 24A was<\/p>\n
     added and in the operative order words “as<\/p>\n
     against defendant no.2” have been added. In<\/p>\n
     view     ofig  this,     the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
     Application no. 415 of 2003 before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       filed        Civil<\/p>\n
     In the said application, one Sukhbirsingh S\/o<\/p>\n
     Tarasingh Chatwal suo motu appeared and filed<\/p>\n
     Civil Application no. 5402 of 2004 and stated<\/p>\n
     that he had purchased the suit property during<\/p>\n
     the    pendency    of    Appeal,    by     registered            sale<\/p>\n
     deed dated 27.10.1978 and he claimed that he<\/p>\n
     is in possession of the suit property and if<\/p>\n
     this Civil Application is allowed, he is also<\/p>\n
     likely to be affected.\n<\/p>\n
            This      Court     however        considered               the<\/p>\n
     application and allowed his intervention. He<\/p>\n
     was     heard     at     length     along          with        other<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                  20<\/span>
\n                                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
     respondents and this Court held that there was<\/p>\n
     tampering and directed to correct the judgment<\/p>\n
     accordingly. Against the said judgment of this<\/p>\n
     Court, the husband of the present applicant<\/p>\n
     no.1-Sukhbirsingh Chatwal had approached the<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 21339 of 2004<\/p>\n
     and same was dismissed on 25.10.2004.\n<\/p>\n
            It is submitted that during the pendency<\/p>\n
     of     the   suit,   the     said      Sukhbirsingh               had<\/p>\n
     purchased    property      and   in    violation           of     the<\/p>\n
     Court order, he had started construction in<\/p>\n
     the year 2005 over the suit property. It is<\/p>\n
     submitted that the present plaintiff had filed<\/p>\n
     Regular Darkhast no. 104 of 1994. When in the<\/p>\n
     year    2005,   construction          was      started,           the<\/p>\n
     decree holder plaintiff has filed injunction<\/p>\n
     application     on    06.06.2005            and       the       said<\/p>\n
     application was allowed by the Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
     Junior Division, Aurangabad on                  22nd August,<\/p>\n
     2005 and thereby the plaintiffs are restrained<\/p>\n
     from carrying out construction over the suit<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         21<\/span>
\n                                                                       cra105.06<\/p>\n
     property. However, the construction is still<\/p>\n
     continuing          and     therefore,             the         contempt<\/p>\n
     proceedings         are     pending        before         the        Trial<\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
           It is submitted that in utter disregard of<\/p>\n
     order    of    this       Court,    the     present          applicant<\/p>\n
     Sushil Kaur and others have executed sale deed<\/p>\n
     in favour of third party in respect of suit<\/p>\n
     property. Therefore, time and again, complaint<\/p>\n
     was     lodged      by     present      plaintiff            with       the<\/p>\n
     Municipal Corporation and other authorities.\n<\/p>\n
     It is further submitted that one news item was<\/p>\n
     published in the news paper and therefore, the<\/p>\n
     Regular Civil Suit no. 870 of 2006 was filed<\/p>\n
     by    the     revision       applicants,            in      which         no<\/p>\n
     injunction         was     granted.        As       soon        as      the<\/p>\n
     respondent          no.1-Aurangabad                 Ginning             and<\/p>\n
     Pressing Factory came to know about the said<\/p>\n
     suit,       filed     application           for       addition            of<\/p>\n
     parties.      It    is     submitted        that       the       present<\/p>\n
     respondent          no.1-Aurangabad                 Ginning             and<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                       22<\/span>
\n                                                                     cra105.06<\/p>\n
     Pressing    Factory       has     filed       application             for<\/p>\n
     addition of parties and same application was<\/p>\n
     allowed     by    order     dated       05.12.2005.             It      is<\/p>\n
     submitted        that     the     applicants            herein          by<\/p>\n
     concealing        all     real        material          facts         and<\/p>\n
     litigation       by     filing    Suit      and      Appeal          have<\/p>\n
     obtained the order of injunction. The illegal<\/p>\n
     property.\n<\/p>\n
     construction have been carried out in the said<\/p>\n
                      The    sale     deed       is      executed            in<\/p>\n
     violation of the order of this Court. It is<\/p>\n
     further submitted that the respondent no.1 has<\/p>\n
     filed Writ Petition no. 3628 of 2006 before<\/p>\n
     this Court. In the said Writ Petition, the<\/p>\n
     Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has clearly<\/p>\n
     stated that permission of construction given<\/p>\n
     to Sushil Kaur Chatwal and others is revoked<\/p>\n
     by order dated 14.08.2006 and Corporation is<\/p>\n
     not reconsidering the same.\n<\/p>\n
         The     learned       Counsel       appearing            for      the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
     order passed in the said Writ Petition and<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                    23<\/span>
\n                                                                     cra105.06<\/p>\n
     Review Petition. It is submitted that action<\/p>\n
     taken by the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad<\/p>\n
     is in pursuance of constant complaint made by<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 herein, who is real owner of<\/p>\n
     the   factory.         It    is     submitted             that        the<\/p>\n
     applicants have no regard to the law and the<\/p>\n
     orders of this Court and flouted the same. It<\/p>\n
     is submitted that in a proceedings i.e. Civil<\/p>\n
     Application no. 415 of 2003, said Sukhbirsingh<\/p>\n
     Tarasingh       Chatwal,          the     husband            of       the<\/p>\n
     applicant no.1, had made a statement that he<\/p>\n
     had purchased the suit property from defendant<\/p>\n
     no.1-Nutanbai and he is likely to be affected<\/p>\n
     by the decision of this Court. It is further<\/p>\n
     submitted       that   now    the       applicants             in     the<\/p>\n
     subsequent proceedings are stating that the<\/p>\n
     suit property i.e. the property purchased by<\/p>\n
     them is different from the suit property. This<\/p>\n
     is totally and intentionally false statement<\/p>\n
     on oath in order to mislead the Court.\n<\/p>\n
           It   is    further     submitted          that       the      suit<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        24<\/span>
\n                                                                      cra105.06<\/p>\n
     property which is purchased by the husband of<\/p>\n
     the present applicant no.1 during the pendency<\/p>\n
     of the suit from Nutanbai, and therefore, the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 herein who succeeded in Civil<\/p>\n
     proceedings        against        Nutanbai          is      necessary<\/p>\n
     party to the suit filed by the applicants-\n<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs. The learned Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 in support of his contention<\/p>\n
     that the respondent no.1 is necessary party to<\/p>\n
     the suit invited my attention to the title<\/p>\n
     clause    of   Civil       Suit    bearing         Regular         Civil<\/p>\n
     Suit     no.   218    of     1972        and     submitted           that<\/p>\n
     Nutanbai is the respondent no.1 in the said<\/p>\n
     suit,    which      was     filed        by    respondent            no.1<\/p>\n
     herein. The learned Counsel further invited my<\/p>\n
     attention to the title clause in Second Appeal<\/p>\n
     no. 189 of 1979, where the Aurangabad Ginning<\/p>\n
     and     Pressing     Factory           i.e.    respondent            no.1<\/p>\n
     herein is appellant and Nutanbai is respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1     therein.     The     learned          counsel          further<\/p>\n
     invited my attention to the title clause of<\/p>\n
     the Writ Petition no. 3628 of 2006 in which<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            25<\/span>
\n                                                                           cra105.06<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.1 is the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
     Municipal            Corporation,                  Aurangabad                 is<\/p>\n
     respondent       no.1          and    there        are       also       added<\/p>\n
     respondents          in    the       said    Writ       Petition          i.e.<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh              Chatwal,          Sushilkaur             Chatwal,<\/p>\n
     Gurbirsingh Chatwal, Sathirsingh Chatwal and<\/p>\n
     Rawelsingh Arjunsigh. Therefore, the learned<\/p>\n
     counsel    ig would        submit          that<\/p>\n
     herein were made party respondents even in the
\n                                                          the       applicants<\/p>\n
     said     Writ        Petition.             The     learned           counsel<\/p>\n
     further       invited           my         attention          to       Review<\/p>\n
     Application no. 56 of 2010 in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     no.    3628     of    2006,      in        which      the      applicants<\/p>\n
     herein    appear          to    be    revision          applicants            in<\/p>\n
     those proceedings and the respondent no.1 is<\/p>\n
     party     respondent                 no.1        even         in         those<\/p>\n
     proceedings.          The        learned           counsel           further<\/p>\n
     invited my attention to other documents and<\/p>\n
     also submitted that the respondent no.1 is a<\/p>\n
     necessary party in the suit, and therefore,<\/p>\n
     the Appellate Court has rightly allowed the<\/p>\n
     application filed by the respondent no.1 and<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                 26<\/span>
\n                                                             cra105.06<\/p>\n
     directed the applicants to add the respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1 as respondent in the appeal. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     such order cannot be interfered with or upset<\/p>\n
     in the Revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         I have given due consideration to the<\/p>\n
     rival submissions and I have also perused the<\/p>\n
     Civil Revision Application, Annexures thereto,<\/p>\n
     other documents placed on record and written<\/p>\n
     notes     of   arguments   filed     by      the       learned<\/p>\n
     counsel    for   the   respective    parties.          At     the<\/p>\n
     outset it would be relevant to reproduce the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code<\/p>\n
     of Civil Procedure, which read thus:\n<\/p>\n
                “Order 1 Rule 10(2) : Court may
\n                strike out or add parties : The Court
\n                may at any stage of the proceedings,
\n                either    upon    or   without    the<\/p>\n
                application of either party, and on
\n                such terms as may appear to the Court
\n                to be just, order that the name of
\n                any party improperly joined, whether
\n                as plaintiff or defendant, be struck
\n                out, and that the name of any person
\n                who ought to have been joined,
\n                whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
\n                whose presence before the Court may<\/p>\n
                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        27<\/span>
\n                                                                      cra105.06<\/p>\n
                    be necessary in order to enable                         the<\/p>\n
                    Court effectually and completely                         to
\n                    adjudicate upon and settle all                          the<\/p>\n
                    questions involved in the suit,                          be
\n                    added.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           From perusal of the provisions of Order 1<\/p>\n
     Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it<\/p>\n
     is abundantly clear that the Court may at any<\/p>\n
     stage     of     the   proceedings,            either         upon       or<\/p>\n
     without the application of either party, may<\/p>\n
     allow   to      join   as    party       to    the      proceedings<\/p>\n
     whether     as    plaintiff       or     defendant          or     whose<\/p>\n
     presence before the Court may be necessary in<\/p>\n
     order   to       enable     the    Court       effectually             and<\/p>\n
     completely to adjudicate upon and settle all<\/p>\n
     the questions involved in the suit. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     the   powers      exercised       by     the     Adhoc        District<\/p>\n
     Judge-3,         Aurangabad            while      allowing             the<\/p>\n
     application of the respondent no.1 herein for<\/p>\n
     adding them as party to the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
     applicants are within the fore corners of law<\/p>\n
     and certainly governed by the provisions of<\/p>\n
     Order   1      Rule    10(2)      of     the     Code       of     Civil<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     28<\/span>
\n                                                                       cra105.06<\/p>\n
     Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
          Therefore,      in   my        considered             view,        the<\/p>\n
     Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad has acted<\/p>\n
     within the fore corners of the provisions of<\/p>\n
     Order   1   Rule    10(2)      of     the         Code       of      Civil<\/p>\n
     Procedure.    The    District         Judge         had      power        to<\/p>\n
     entertain   igthe    application<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 and such powers are exercised
\n                                                      filed         by       the<\/p>\n
     by the concerned Court properly.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   From    perusal      of        the      contents           of      the<\/p>\n
     application    filed      by        the        respondent             no.1<\/p>\n
     before the District Court, Aurangabad, it is<\/p>\n
     abundantly clear that in various proceedings,<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.1 was party. It is also not<\/p>\n
     in dispute that the suit bearing Regular Civil<\/p>\n
     Suit no. 218 of 1972, which was filed by the<\/p>\n
     respondent    no.1     herein         in         the       year       1972<\/p>\n
     against Nutanbai and three others, the husband<\/p>\n
     of   the    applicant       no.1          did        purchase           the<\/p>\n
     property from said Nutanbai i.e. plot C.T.S.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        29<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                      cra105.06<\/p>\n
     Nos. 13162 and 13163. Therefore, it is clear<\/p>\n
     that Nutanbai, the vendor of the applicants<\/p>\n
     and    others were restrained from carrying out<\/p>\n
     any construction over the disputed site from<\/p>\n
     30.09.1975.        It    is     also    relevant         to     mention<\/p>\n
     that the judgment of Regular Civil Suit no.\n<\/p>\n
     218 of 1972 was challenged in Second Appeal<\/p>\n
     No.    189  <\/span>
\n                   of     1979,       wherein<\/p>\n
     confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court
\n                                                   this        Court        has<\/p>\n
     in Regular Civil Suit no. 218 of 1972. Late<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh did file Special Leave Petition<\/p>\n
     before the Hon’ble Apex Court, aggrieved by<\/p>\n
     the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal<\/p>\n
     no. 189 of 1979. This position is not disputed<\/p>\n
     by    the applicants. Therefore, said Nutanbai<\/p>\n
     was admittedly party in Regular Civil Suit no.\n<\/p>\n
     218    of    1972,       wherein       the     respondent            no.1<\/p>\n
     herein       was        plaintiff       and        Nutanbai            was<\/p>\n
     defendant and she was restrained from carrying<\/p>\n
     out    the   construction          on    disputed           site.        As<\/p>\n
     stated      earlier,      late     Sukhbirsingh             purchased<\/p>\n
     the    property          from    Nutanbai          and        she      was<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                    30<\/span>
\n                                                                   cra105.06<\/p>\n
     restrained        as       stated      above.           As        such<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh       stepped          into      the        shoe         of<\/p>\n
     Nutanbai. Therefore, the Appellate Court after<\/p>\n
     appreciating         the     rival         contentions              and<\/p>\n
     documents     brought        on      record         held        that,<\/p>\n
     Sukhbirsingh cannot say that the judgment and<\/p>\n
     decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 218 of<\/p>\n
     1972 on 30th September, 1975 is not binding on<\/p>\n
     him because he was not party to the said suit.\n<\/p>\n
     The    deceased    Sukhbirsingh         had       obtained          the<\/p>\n
     permission     for      construction         on      23rd       June,<\/p>\n
     2005, however, he did not disclose that the<\/p>\n
     judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil<\/p>\n
     Suit no. 218 of 1972 dated 30th September,<\/p>\n
     1975    to   the       Municipal      Corporation,              while<\/p>\n
     obtaining the permission.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     The Appellate Court after appreciating the<\/p>\n
     rival    submissions        and     documents          placed         on<\/p>\n
     record, reached to the conclusion that, the<\/p>\n
     case in hand admittedly on the basis of a<\/p>\n
     decree, the execution proceeding bearing No.<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                    31<\/span>
\n                                                                 cra105.06<\/p>\n
     104 of 1994 and 166 of 1993 came to be filed<\/p>\n
     against the applicants herein for getting the<\/p>\n
     possession as per the judgment and decree and<\/p>\n
     restraining order of perpetual injunction from<\/p>\n
     causing     any       illegal      interference              either<\/p>\n
     personally       or      through    their         agents          and<\/p>\n
     servants in possession of the plaintiff i.e.<\/p>\n
     respondent<\/p>\n
     appellate
\n                igCourt
\n                       no.1     herein.\n<\/p>\n
                              reached     to\n                                               Therefore,\n\n                                                the       conclusion\n                                                                       the\n              \n<\/pre>\n
     that,”it can safely be said that in view of<\/p>\n
     the judgment of the Regular Civil Suit no. 218<\/p>\n
     of 1972 and pendency of execution proceeding<\/p>\n
     the applicant has substantial interest in the<\/p>\n
     suit property.” It is further observed by the<\/p>\n
     appellate    Court       that,     “the    applicant            i.e.<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 herein is required to be added<\/p>\n
     as party to the appeal as respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
     10. On     careful       perusal     of      the       documents<\/p>\n
     produced    by    the     respondent      along        with       the<\/p>\n
     written notes of arguments and avernments in<\/p>\n
     the application, which was filed before the<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     32<\/span>
\n                                                                   cra105.06<\/p>\n
     appellate Court for adding him as party in the<\/p>\n
     appeal,    it        is     crystal        clear       that         the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 has a substantial interest in<\/p>\n
     the suit property. Therefore, for complete and<\/p>\n
     effectual disposal of the proceeding filed by<\/p>\n
     the applicants herein before the Courts below,<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.1 is a necessary party.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n          The\n                \n                  appellate        Court        on       perusal           of\n               \n<\/pre>\n
     avernments in the application and number of<\/p>\n
     documents produced on record, has reached to<\/p>\n
     the definite and correct conclusion that the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 is a necessary party in the<\/p>\n
     proceedings         filed    by     the     applicants,             and<\/p>\n
     therefore,      I     do    not     find     any       reason         to<\/p>\n
     interfere in the judgment and order passed by<\/p>\n
     the Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad, which<\/p>\n
     is impugned in this Revision Application.\n<\/p>\n
     11. The Supreme Court in the case of “Ramesh<\/p>\n
     Hirachand Kundanmal V\/s Municipal Corporation<\/p>\n
     of   Greater    Bombay       and    others”        reported           in<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     33<\/span>
\n                                                                    cra105.06<\/p>\n
     (1992)     2     S.S.C.        524     held           that        while<\/p>\n
     considering      the     provisions       of     Order        1    Rule<\/p>\n
     10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in case<\/p>\n
     of prayer for addition of necessary party, the<\/p>\n
     Court has judicial discretion which it has to<\/p>\n
     exercise        having      regard          to        facts          and<\/p>\n
     circumstances of the case. In exercise of this<\/p>\n
     discretion ig    court     can       direct<\/p>\n
     though dominus litis, to implead a person as a
\n                                                       a     plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     necessary party defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     12. The        Supreme     Court       in        the       case        of<\/p>\n
     “Sumtibai      and   others      V\/s    Paras         Finance        Co.\n<\/p>\n
     Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj) Through<\/p>\n
     Mankanwar (Smt) W\/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead)<\/p>\n
     and others” reported in (2007) 10 S.C.C. 82,<\/p>\n
     while interpreting the provisions of Order 1<\/p>\n
     Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure held<\/p>\n
     that, while determining who is proper party of<\/p>\n
     the proceedings, if a party can show a fair<\/p>\n
     semblance       of     title     or    interest,             he      can<\/p>\n
     certainly file an application for impleadment.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                   34<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                    cra105.06<\/p>\n
     13. The contentions on merit of the parties<\/p>\n
     are not taken away by the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
     and order. The revision applicants can agitate<\/p>\n
     all the points available to them during the<\/p>\n
     course     of     trial    or      hearing           before          the<\/p>\n
     appropriate Courts. Therefore, viewed from any<\/p>\n
     angle,<\/p>\n
     impugned<\/p>\n
               in     my<\/p>\n
                    judgment
\n                            opinion,<\/p>\n
                                and
\n                                        interference<\/p>\n
                                        order        in
\n                                                                   in<\/p>\n
                                                             revisional
\n                                                                          the<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction is wholly unwarranted, since the<\/p>\n
     power\/jurisdiction         exercised           by      the        Adhoc<\/p>\n
     District       Judge-3,    Aurangabad             is      perfectly<\/p>\n
     sustainable      under    the     provision          of     Order        1<\/p>\n
     Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,       the    impugned       judgment         and       order<\/p>\n
     stands      confirmed.           The        Civil           Revision<\/p>\n
     Application       stands     rejected.              Rule        stands<\/p>\n
     discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                             [ S.S. SHINDE, J ]<\/p>\n
     ga s\/cra105.06<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:45:53 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 cra105.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2006 1. Smt. Sushil Kaur W\/o Sukhbirsingh Chhatwal, Aged : 56 years, Occ : Household, R\/o […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\\\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5126,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\\\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\\\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011"},"wordCount":5126,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011","name":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T06:05:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sushil-kaur-vs-ms-aurangabad-ginning-pressing-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sushil Kaur vs M\/S Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing on 22 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}