JUNED NASURUDDIN MESTRIversusAHMED UMAR MESTRI DECEASED THRU LRS AND ORS

                                                                                 -WP-11565-2026.DOC

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 11565 OF 2026


                      Juned Nasuruddin Mestri                                       ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      Ahmed Umar Mestri (Deceased) Through his                   …Respondents
                      Legal Heirs and Ors

                      Mr. Sachin S Punde, with Suraj Jadhav, Mansi Bansode & Atharva
                            Unde, for the Petitioner.

                                                   CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                   DATE :         8th SEPTEMBER 2026


                      ORDER:

                      1.     Heard Mr. Sachin S Punde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

                      2.    The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 2nd May 2026,

                      passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, whereby

                      Defendant Nos. 9 and 10, the officers of Panvel Municipal Corporation,

                      were deleted from the array of the Defendants in the suit instituted by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
                      the Petitioner for declaration and perpetual injunction.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.09
20:00:11 +0530
                      3.    Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 - Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 filed an

                      Application seeking rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of

                      the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) and the deletion of

                      Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 from the array of the Defendants under Order

                      I Rule 10 of the Code, as there was no cause of action to implead them




                      ARS                                   1/3
                                                         -WP-11565-2026.DOC

in the suit seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs qua the private

parties.

4.    By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to

partly allow the Application and direct the deletion of Defendant Nos. 9

and 10 from the array of the Defendants by exercising the power under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, whilst declining to reject the Plaint.

5.    Mr. Sachin Punde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

submitted that the learned Judge has exercised the discretion to delete

Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 from the array of the Defendants despite there

being adequate averments in the Plaint to the effect that Defendant Nos.

9 and 10 had not paid any heed to the repetitive complaints lodged by

the Plaintiff in regard to the alleged encroachment committed by the co-

Defendants. Mr. Punde invited attention of the Court to the prayer

clauses (d) and (e), wherein, according to Mr. Punde, the prayers qua

Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are implicit.

6.    I am afraid to accede to the submissions of Mr. Punde.

7.    A meaningful reading of the Plaint, makes it abundantly clear

that the suit suffers from multiple infirmities including mis-joinder of

parties and mis-joinder of causes of action. This Court is of the prima

facie view that the claim for declaration of ownership which is the

foundation of the injunctive reliefs, ought to have examined by the Trial

Court more minutely.


ARS                                   2/3
                                                         -WP-11565-2026.DOC

8.    The claim for ownership rests on a purported       Promissory Note

(opufpB~Bh) executed on 16th November 1949 by the predecessor-in-title

of Defendant No.1 in favour of grandfather of the Plaintiff, who was

allegedly the original holder of the suit property, to convey the property

in the event of failure to repay the amount purportedly advanced by the

grandfather of the Petitioner to his son, Ahmed, the predecessor-in-title

of Defendant No.1. Prima facie the claim is tenuous.

9.    In any event, even in regard to the alleged encroachment by the

co-Defendants and inaction of Defendant Nos. 9 and 10, it would be

suffice to note that the Plaintiff claims that the co-Defendants have

encroached upon a private property purportedly owned by the Plaintiff

and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The learned Civil Judge was thus fully

justified in observing that, the suit was essentially for removal of

encroachment from the private property and not in respect of alleged

unauthorised development. At any rate, Defendant nos. 9 and 10 who

were sought to be impleaded in their official capacity, were neither

necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Thus no fault can be found

with the impugned order.

10.   The Petition thus stands dismissed.



                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                   3/3