Neeta Sawant 3-WP-11255-2023.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11255 OF 2023 Mr.Nikhil Narendra Waghmare and Ors. …..PETITIONERS : VERSUS : Mrs.Kshama Sharadkumar Waghela & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS Mr. Latif Pirani (through V.C.) i/b. Pirani & Co, for the Petitioners. Mr. Arun Panickar, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil i/b Ms. Ruchi V. Patil, for Respondent No.3-SRA. Mr. Nikhil Waghmare, Petitioner personally present in Court. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 12 FEBRUARY, 2026. P.C. : 1) The petition challenges order dated 15 July 2023 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court allowing Chamber Summons No. 322 of 2023 ?led by Respondent No.1 and directed her impleadment to the Suit. 2) I have heard Mr.Pirani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.Panickar, learned counsel appearing for Resp No.2 and Mr.Patil for Respondent No.3. 3) Plainti@s have ?led a Suit seeking a declaration that they are protected occupiers in respect of the Suit stricture and that Defendant No.1-Developer is bound and liable to rehabilitate and provide PAAA to them in the Scheme of redevelopment of the slum. Respondent No.1claims to have purchased the suit structure and relies on instrument of purchase which apparently bears signature of Plainti@ No.2 as a witness. _________________________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 o f 2 12 FEBRUARY 2026 Neeta Sawant 3-WP-11255-2023.docx This position is disputed by the Plainti@s. Be that as it may. Since Defendant No.1 claims to be the purchaser of the suit structure, her presence in the Suit would be necessary and the declaration sought for in the Suit cannot be granted in absence of Respondent No.1. No e@ective decree can be passed in the Suit in absence of Respondent No1. 4) Mr.Pirani, submits that Plainti@s are dominus litis in respect of their own suit and cannot be forced to seek relief against Respondent No.1. In Ashok Babarao Patil Versus. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1 , this Court has held that the theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched which results in ine@ective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non-interested persons/oAcials and then use it to assert rights of the Plainti@. This Court held in para-20 of the judgment as under : 20. The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, which results in ine@ective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non- interested persons/oAcials and then use it to assert rights of Plainti@. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in dispute is e@ectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties. Merely because plainti@ does not choose to implead a person is not suAcient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. If the Court fees it appropriate that any particular party’s presence is necessary before the Court for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit, the Court has full power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to direct addition of such party to the suit. 5) The present Suit appears to be cleverly drafted for seeking relief essentially against Respondent No.1 by deliberately avoiding to implead her in his suit. In view of the above, no in?rmity can be traced in the order passed by the Learned Judge. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 1 Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022 decided on 11 October 2022 _________________________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 o f 2 12 FEBRUARY 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.02.17 15:05:11 +0530