LAWRENCE JOSE FERNANDES Vs. RAMAKANT YESHWANT PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.S. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 11 while none appeared on behalf of the respondents no.12 & 13.

(2.) It was the contention of Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Trial Court had passed the impugned order to delete the name of the respondents no.12 & 13 from the proceedings and also to delete the issue of tenancy even though they had carved a specific case of tenancy in respect of the half of the suit property 308/1 unlike the respondents no.1 to 11 who had claimed the right to the entire property. The issue of tenancy was relevant and had to be referred to the Mamlatdar. He referred to the order passed by this Court dated 10/01/2017 and relied in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwanrao Auti V/s. Ganpatrao Raut & Anr., 1987 3 BCR 258 and submitted that the respondents no.12 & 13 were necessary parties being some of the co-owners which was otherwise admitted by the respondents no.1 to 11 in their statement in defence apart from claiming tenancy. He further contended that the ratio in Smt. Palmira Valadares V/s. Shri Inacio Mariano Dias & Ors., 1998 1 GoaLT 220 was not in dispute but it was not attracted in the facts of the case. The issue of tenancy was referred by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar and which was now pending before the Civil Court in view of the change of jurisdiction. The impugned order had therefore to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition had to be allowed.

(3.) Shri D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 11 submitted at the outset that a bare reading of the plaint indicated that the petitioner had sought for the relief of injunction simpliciter against them who were not the landlords. A reading of the pleadings in the plaint revealed at para 30 that :