Bombay High Court
NIKHIL NAREWNDRA WAGHMARE AND ORSversusKSHAMA SHARADKUMAR WAGHELA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The order allowing the chamber summons and directing the impleadment of Respondent No.1 is valid as the doctrine of dominus litis cannot be stretched to exclude necessary parties.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a July 2023 order of the City Civil Court that allowed a chamber summons against Respondent No.1 (the developer) and directed her impleadment in a suit seeking declaration of protected occupier status and rehabilitation rights. The petitioners argued they were the dominus litis and should not be forced to add Respondent No.1, relying on a prior decision that the doctrine cannot be overstretched. The Court observed that the suit was drafted to obtain relief against Respondent No.1 while deliberately avoiding her presence, and that the doctrine of dominus litis cannot be used to sideline necessary parties. Citing Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC and the Ashok Babarao Patil case, the Court held that the lower court’s order was proper and that all necessary parties must be impleaded. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the order directing impleadment of Respondent No.1 in the suit
- Whether the doctrine of dominus litis can be invoked to avoid adding a necessary party
- Applicability of Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in directing addition of parties
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order I Rule 10(2)
Subjects
- dominus litis
- impleadment
- necessary parties
- Civil Procedure
- protected occupier
- redevelopment scheme
- chamber summons
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 3-WP-11255-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11255 OF 2023
Mr.Nikhil Narendra Waghmare
and Ors. …..PETITIONERS
: VERSUS :
Mrs.Kshama Sharadkumar Waghela & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS
Mr. Latif Pirani (through V.C.) i/b. Pirani & Co, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Arun Panickar, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil i/b Ms. Ruchi V. Patil, for Respondent No.3-SRA.
Mr. Nikhil Waghmare, Petitioner personally present in Court.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 12 FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1) The petition challenges order dated 15 July 2023 passed by the
Learned Judge of the City Civil Court allowing Chamber Summons No. 322
of 2023 ?led by Respondent No.1 and directed her impleadment to the Suit.
2) I have heard Mr.Pirani, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr.Panickar, learned counsel appearing for Resp No.2 and
Mr.Patil for Respondent No.3.
3) Plainti@s have ?led a Suit seeking a declaration that they are
protected occupiers in respect of the Suit stricture and that Defendant
No.1-Developer is bound and liable to rehabilitate and provide PAAA to
them in the Scheme of redevelopment of the slum. Respondent
No.1claims to have purchased the suit structure and relies on instrument of
purchase which apparently bears signature of Plainti@ No.2 as a witness.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 1 o f 2
12 FEBRUARY 2026
Neeta Sawant 3-WP-11255-2023.docx
This position is disputed by the Plainti@s. Be that as it may. Since
Defendant No.1 claims to be the purchaser of the suit structure, her
presence in the Suit would be necessary and the declaration sought for in
the Suit cannot be granted in absence of Respondent No.1. No e@ective
decree can be passed in the Suit in absence of Respondent No1.
4) Mr.Pirani, submits that Plainti@s are dominus litis in respect
of their own suit and cannot be forced to seek relief against Respondent
No.1. In Ashok Babarao Patil Versus. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1,
this Court has held that the theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched
which results in ine@ective decrees being passed in absence of necessary
parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against
non-interested persons/oAcials and then use it to assert rights of the
Plainti@. This Court held in para-20 of the judgment as under :
20. The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the
matter of impleading of parties, which results in ine@ective
decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties where the
theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non-
interested persons/oAcials and then use it to assert rights of
Plainti@. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in
dispute is e@ectively decided by impleading all those who are
necessary parties. Merely because plainti@ does not choose to
implead a person is not suAcient for rejection of an application for
being impleaded. If the Court fees it appropriate that any particular
party’s presence is necessary before the Court for adjudicating
upon the issue involved in the suit, the Court has full power under
Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to direct addition of such party to the
suit.
5) The present Suit appears to be cleverly drafted for seeking
relief essentially against Respondent No.1 by deliberately avoiding to
implead her in his suit. In view of the above, no in?rmity can be traced in
the order passed by the Learned Judge. The Writ Petition is accordingly
rejected.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SAWANT Date:
2026.02.17
15:05:11
+0530
1 Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022 decided on 11 October 2022
_________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 2 o f 2
12 FEBRUARY 2026
Checking your session…