SITARAM D MAPSEKAR Vs. PRAMOD R PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the defendant is challenging the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, below Exhibit-16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 105/2014, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), has been dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit for possession of the suit shop and for injunction against the petitioner, claiming that the petitioner has forcibly obtained the possession of the suit shop. The petitioner has raised the defence that the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 23.06.2009 with one Tajdin Hyder Ali and had also delivered possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the agreement of sale. It is further contended that said Tajdin Hyder Ali has inducted the petitioner into the shop premises. In that view of the matter, the petitioner filed application (Exhibit-16) claiming that Tajdin Hyder Ali is a necessary party to the suit and he may be joined as a party-defendant.