SHAYAM S O FATECHAND SHENDE Vs. ALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Heard by consent of the advocates for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order 1, Rule 10 for joining them as parties to the Civil Suit No. RCS 642/96. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the applicants are not necessary parties for the effective decision in the matter.

(3.) PERUSAL of the plaint in the suit discloses that the non-applicant No. 1 has filed the suit for declaration that the Map submitted by her to the non-applicant No. 2 on 30-12-1991 was deemed to have been sanctioned by the Corporation and the construction has been done in accordance with the said plan and therefore the construction is not unauthorised. It is the case of the applicants that proceedings were initiated by the non-applicant No. 2 against the non-applicant No. 1 pursuant to the complaint by the applicant regarding the unauthorised construction carried out by the non-applicant No. 1 in the said premises. It is further case of the applicants that, if the applicants are not joined in the suit, their rights alongwith the rights of other tenement holders would be effected in relation to the right of ingress and outgress over the passage specifically left out as per the sanctioned plan.