42-WP-13798-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13798 OF 2018 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 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:16959 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