88 WP 4128 22+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 88 WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2022 LOKYABAI SAMBHAJI PAWAR VERSUS MEERABAI SHRIRAM PAWAR AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H. Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 & 3 : Mr. G.R. Syed ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11603 OF 2022 MEERABAI SHRIRAM PAWAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS LOKYABAI SAMBHAJI PAWAR AND ANOTHER … Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. G.R.Syed Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr.Shaikh Tarek Mobin H. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 09.03.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. Writ Petition No. 4128/2022 is preferred against the order impleading third party vide passed below Exh. 21 on 17.12.2021 in Regular Civil Suit No. 41/2021. Writ Petition No. 11603/2022 is preferred against rejection of application Exh. 44 refusing to call for record and proceedings from the concerned police station. 2. Petitioner Lokyabai Pawar has filed Regular Civil Suit No, 41/2021 for possession and injunction in respect of land Gat No. 156. She is stated to be in possession of part of the suit land and remaining part is in possession of 1/3 2026:BHC-AUG:11167 88 WP 4128 22+.odt near about nine persons, which is stated in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint. In that list names of defendant nos. 1 and 2 are appearing. Her grievance is that they are obstructing her possession and they have encroached over 12- Are of land. 3. Third person Mr. Shriram, who happened to be husband of defendant no. 1-Meerabai, has preferred application Exh. 21 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC contending that he is necessary party because he is in possession of the land. In his application it is contended that he is a necessary party but he is not impleaded in the suit. It is further contended that application was made by plaintiff’s son to police station Naygaon on 22.06.2020 indicating that they did not cultivate the suit land. 4. Simultaneously, defendant no. 1 submitted application Exh. 44 for calling record and proceedings in respect of station diary entry No. 10 from the concerned police station. Application Exh. 21 was allowed and the application Exh. 44 was rejected. 5. It is trite law that plaintiff is the dominus litis. The grievance of the plaintiff and cause of action is to the extent of encroachment made by defendant no. 1 to the extent of 07-Are and defendant no. 2 to the extent of 05 Are despite knowledge that third party is the husband of defendant no. 1. He has not been impleaded in the suit. My attention is adverted to 7x12 extract which does not reflect the name of third party. No relief is solicited against the third party. Therefore, no case is made out that he is a necessary party. Finding recorded by the Trial Court that to avoid the complication he is required to be included as a party is perverse. In the absence of any cause of action and grievance, third party cannot participate in the proceeding. It is not the case of either party that adjudication of the controversy is impossible unless the third party is impleaded. I find that order below exh. 21 is unsustainable. 6. It reveals that the parties are armed with the certified copies of the 2/3 88 WP 4128 22+.odt document and entry of the police station diary. There is no necessity to call for entire record and proceedings or the relevant documents at this stage of the proceeding. The view taken by the Trial Court in rejecting the application Exh. 44 cannot be faulted. 7. Writ Petition No. 4128/2022 is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that it would be open for the plaintiff to defend or save the suit if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the concerned third party was necessary party but not implead. 8. Writ Petition No. 11603/2022 is dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3