PEDRO FERNANDES Vs. PEDRO CONCESSAO MARIO GONSALVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, S. D., Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.9/2003/A allowing two applications under Order I, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code one filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the second one filed by the respondent No.3.

(2.) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff in the above suit and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed above suit claiming the following reliefs against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2:

(3.) MR. D'Costa, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that although the plaintiff is the dominus litis, the respondent No.3 is a proper party in the suit in as much as the suit property belongs to the respondent No.3 and although by the judgment and order dated 12.12.2001 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.36/78/B the Trial Court has dismissed the claim of title to the suit property by the respondent No.3, Second Appeal No.38/2005 filed by the respondent No.3 against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court, has been admitted by this Court. Mr. D'Costa further submitted that the respondent No.3 though not a necessary party, is a proper party in the suit since the respondent No.3 is the owner of the suit property and as such the presence of the respondent No.3 is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In support of his submissions, Mr.D'Costa placed reliance upon the following judgments: