Bombay High Court

SONUBAI JAGANNATH DESHMUKH (SINCE DECD.) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusBABUTAI DATTATRAYA DHUMAL (SINCE DECD.) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: GAURI GODSE

Holding

The order deleting the non‑necessary defendant is proper and does not merit interference; the plaintiff must amend the suit accordingly.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that struck out the name of Defendant No.12, a Special Land Acquisition Officer, in a suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioners argued that the plaint could not be partially rejected and that the deletion of the defendant was improper. The High Court observed that the trial court had not rejected the plaint against Defendant No.12 but merely deleted him on the ground that he was not a necessary party, which is permissible because a party cannot be added solely to obtain evidence. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the order and therefore declined to interfere under Article 227. It directed the plaintiff to amend the suit promptly and instructed the parties to cooperate for early disposal, dismissing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a court may delete a defendant from a partition suit on the ground that he is not a necessary party rather than reject the plaint as a whole.
Whether the order deleting the defendant is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the plaintiff is required to amend the suit to address the deletion of the defendant.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11

Subjects

partition suit
necessary party
deletion of defendant
amendment of plaint
writ petition
Article 227
discretionary jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:16959

                                                                42-WP-13798-2018.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 13798 OF 2018
   Swapnil
               Sonubai Jagannath Deshmukh
               (since Decd.) Through Lrs. and Ors.        …      Petitioners
                    Vs.
               Babutai Dattatraya Dhumal (since Decd.)
               Through Lrs. and Ors.                      …      Respondents


               Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w. Mr. Mayank Tripathi for the
               petitioners.

                                       CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                       DATE :        8th APRIL 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff to challenge the

               order passed by the trial court directing striking out of the

               name of defendant no.12 i.e. Special Land Acquisition

               Officer. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession.

               The application was filed on behalf of defendant no.12 for

               rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil

               Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”).


               2.    Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits

               that while deciding the application for rejection of plaint, court

               could not have ordered the deletion of defendant no.12. He
                                               1/3
                                                42-WP-13798-2018.docx


submits that the plaint can be rejected as as whole and it

cannot be rejected only qua one of the defendant. He,

therefore, submits that the impugned order would require

interference by this court.


3.      I have perused the papers of the writ petition. The trial

court has not rejected the plaint against defendant no.12.

However, has ordered the deletion of defendant no.12 on

the ground that defendant no.12 is not a necessary party. In

the suit for partition and separate possession, defendant

no.12 is not a necessary party. The Land Acquisition Officer

cannot be made a party on the ground that necessary

information from the Land Acquisition Officer would be

necessary. It is always open for the plaintiff to apply for

issuing witness summons or production of documents

through a witness. For gathering information in the form of

evidence, a party cannot be added as a party defendant in a

suit.


4.      I do not see any reason why defendant no. 12 should

be added as a party defendant. There is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference

in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of


                                2/3
                                                  42-WP-13798-2018.docx


the Constitution of India. The suit is of the year 2001.


5.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

plaintiff has not carried out the amendment in view of the

pendency of this writ petition. Hence, the suit has remained

pending.


6.    It is, therefore, clarified that the plaintiff shall carry out

the necessary amendment forthwith in the suit.


7.    The parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the

suit and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.


8.    The writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.




                                            [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                                3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…