KIRAN SURESHCHANDRA ATTALversusMANGALA NANDKUMAR SABNIS AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40050
                                                   1                    70-WP -6039-14.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 6039 OF 2014
                     WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10330 OF 2017 IN WP/6039/2014
                     WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11937 OF 2014 IN WP/6039/2014

                Mrs. Kiran w/o. Sureshchandra Attal,
                Age 60 years, Occu. Household, R/o.5-6-24,
                Usmanpura, Aurangabad Through her G.P.A.Holder,
                Mr. Sureshchandra s/o. Ramprasad Attal,
                Age 52 years, Occu. Business,
                R/o. 5-6-24, Usmanpura, Aurangabad         ..   Petitioner

                             Versus

                1.      Mrs. Mangala w/o. Nandkumar Sabnis,
                        Age 51 years, Occu. Household,
                        R/o. C-4-14, Sneh Nagar, Aurangabad

                2.      Nandkumar s/o. Madhukarrao Sabnis,
                        Age 53 years, Occu. Service, R/o. As above

                3.      Mohan s/o. Ganpatrao Mohite,
                        Age 46 years, Occu. Business,
                        R/o. Plot No.8, Rajguru Nagar,
                        Beed Bypass Road, Shahnoorwadi,
                        Aurangabad                                ..    Respondents

                Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for Petitioner;
                Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for Respondent No.3;
                Respondents No.1 and 2 served

                                            CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                            DATE       :   31-08-2026
                PER COURT:-

                1.      The petitioner assails the order rendered by the learned 5 th

                Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, below Exhibit-95 in

                Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2011, rejecting the petitioner’s

                application requesting to implead the Municipal Corporation,

                Aurangabad, as defendant No. 4.
                                     2                     70-WP -6039-14.odt



2.    The petitioner presented the suit, seeking a declaration of

ownership and possession of suit Plot No. 7, previously numbered

as Plot No. 17 as per the sanctioned layout plan. The plaintiff

further seeks a mandatory injunction for possession and a

declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant

No.3 is illegal, null, and void.

3.    In the interregnum, the petitioner moved applications,

Exhibit-92 for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) vis-a-vis Exhibit-95 under Order

I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to implead the Municipal Corporation. The

trial court allowed the amendment application (Exhibit-92) and

rejected the impleadment application (Exhibit-95).

4.    Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

vehemently submits that the trial Court committed a manifest

error of law. Since the layout plans were sanctioned by the

Municipal Corporation, relying upon which the petitioner entered

into an agreement. As such, the Corporation is a necessary party

to adjudicate the dispute.         It is submitted that   the trial Court

misread the statutory prerequisite of a pre-suit notice under

Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,

1949, erroneously using it as a ground to block the impleadment.

5.    Per contra, Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for respondent

No.3, supported the order under challenge and submitted that the

Municipal Corporation cannot be regarded as necessary or proper
                                  3                     70-WP -6039-14.odt



party to the suit. The plaintiff sought no substantive relief or

decree against the Corporation. Therefore, the presence of

Corporation is not warranted to resolve the title dispute between

the private parties. As such, the trial Court is justified in rejecting

the application. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.    Upon hearing the learned counsel for the litigating sides and

perusal of the documents on record.       Undoubtedly there are no

reliefs claimed as against the Corporation to satisfy the test of

Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C., essentially, there must be a right to

some relief against such party in respect of controversy involved in

proceedings vis-a-vis no effective decree can be passed in absence

of such party.      Thus, in absence of any relief against the

Corporation and as such cannot be regarded as necessary or

proper party.

7.    To determine whether a party can be impleaded under

Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C., the court must apply the twin tests

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v.

Iyyamperumal and Others [(2005) 6 SCC 733];

        (1)     There must be a right to some relief against
                such party in respect of the controversies
                involved in the proceedings; and
        (2)     No effective decree can be passed in the
                absence of such party.


8.    Applying these tests to the present case, it is evident from

the pleadings that the primary controversy relates to the
                                   4                     70-WP -6039-14.odt



declaration of ownership, possession, and the validity of a sale

deed executed in favour of defendant No.3.          The petitioner has

failed to demonstrate any right to relief against the Municipal

Corporation, Aurangabad, within the scope of dispute presented.

Further, an effective decree completely resolving the question of

title and possession can be passed by the trial court even in the

absence of the Municipal Corporation.

9.    The mere fact that the Corporation sanctioned the layout

plan does not automatically make it a necessary party to a title

suit. Nonetheless, in absence of relief against the Corporation, it

cannot be regarded as a necessary or proper party.           Thus, the

petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin tests laid in the case of

Kasturi (supra), the trial court's determination to reject the

application below Exhibit-95 cannot be regarded as perverse,

illegal, or contrary to the settled principles of law.

10.   Consequently, no error was committed by the trial court. As

such, the writ petition warrants no consideration. Resultantly, the

petition is dismissed.

11.   No order as to costs.

12.   Pending applications stand disposed of.




                                   [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                           JUDGE

rrd