KHODAJI SHIVAJI Vs. MAFAJI MOPTAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 11/5/2022, passed by th the 9 Addl. Civil Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Regular Civil Suit No.300 of 2005 below Exh.70 and 143, whereby the trial Court has allowed the third party application filed by Sakariben Khodaji Shivaji Thakor - respondent No.8 herein for joining as plaintiff in the abovementioned suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as such that the deceased - Khodaji had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.300 of 2005 for permanent injunction and declaration of the property situated at Village: Vejalpur, bearing Revenue Survey No. 988 (New Survey No.315 - on renumbering when transferred the said property to Jodhpur Gam, Ahmedabad) admeasuring 5 acre 36 gutha. It is the case of the petitioners that the present petitioners is having the possession of the land. Further, during proceeding of the suit proceedings, plaintiff Khodaji expired on 15/2/2009, leaving behind his legal heirs i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein and accordingly, the present petitioners along with said respondents were brought on record of the suit proceedings as a legal heirs.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh R. Dewal appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has erred in granting the application at Exh.143 by considering the fact that the respondent No.8 herein is a necessary party and granted permission to implead herself as plaintiff. He has further submitted that the trial Court has committed gross error as respondent No.8 is not related to the deceased as a daughter and the said proposed party - respondent No.8 herein has also waived her right by filing appropriate application and has said that she has no claim in the suit property. He has also raised objection that if anybody is aggrieved by the impugned order by the trial Court, that one can be said to be defendants in the suit. He has further submitted that the impugned order is passed against the provisions of Order I Rule 10 and against the settled legal positions of law as the said third party is neither necessary nor proper party for the plaint in question, and therefore, the present petition is required to be allowed by interfering in the order passed by the trial Court.