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 5th 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. 2026:BHC-AUG:40052 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