AMRITA LAXMAN WAGHMAN Vs. BHIKAJI LAXMAN WAGHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the order dated 20th November, 2007 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Jt. Civil Judge, S.D. Pune, whereby the application of the petitioner who were the original plaintiffs in the suit is only partly allowed.

(2.) THE suit is for partition, possession and injunction in respect of ancestral properties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the suit some of the defendants Nos. 1(A) to 1(C) have executed development agreements with the proposed defendant No.6 as also with proposed defendant No.7 and, therefore, they be impleaded as party defendants in the suit. According to the petitioners, they came to know about said agreement for development only after issuance of public notices in September-October, 2006.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the impugned order. The learned Trial Judge in the impugned order has observed that the petitioners have produced the copy of only one of the alleged development agreements and they have not stated about the court fee stamp in relation to insertion of alleged development agreement. The learned Trial Judge has also observed thus -