1 945-wp-1838-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1838 OF 2024 1. Sopan S/o Shankar Todkar, Age: 66 years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Pandurang S/o Dhondiram Gaikwad, Age: 66 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Guruba S/o Dhondiram Gaikwad, Age: 66 years, Occu.: Agril, R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Vijaykumar S/o Yashwant Ingole, Age: 66 years, Occu.: Agril, R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 5. Bhagirath S/o Yashwant Ingole, Age: 66 years, Occu.: Agril, R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. …..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Gulab S/o Farid Shaikh, Age: 63 years, Occu: Agril, R/o. Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Gram Sevak, Grampanchayat Kumbephal, Kumbephal, Kumbephal, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. …..RESPONDENTS 2025:BHC-AUG:22018 2 945-wp-1838-2024 ______________________________________________________ Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 08TH AUGUST, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- . The petitioners are residents of village Kumbephal, had filed an application for impleading their names as defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.133 of 2023, vide Exhibit 22. This application is rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2023. The said order is impugned in the present petition. 2. The respondent no.1 is the plaintiff, who has filed suit against respondent no.2, claiming the following relief: v- ekSts dqacsQG rk- vkacktksxkbZ] ft-chM xzkeiapk;r gn~nhrhy nsoGk&vkacktksxkbZ eq[; jLR;ko#u iqosZdMs nkO;kps utjh udk’kke/;s yky jaxkus v/kksjs[khr dsysyk oknhP;k ?kjkdMs tk.kkjk 15 QqV #anhpk oknxzLr jLR;kps e/kkse/k izfroknh ;kauh [kksnysyk pj@ukyk ekrhus cqtowu jLrk okgrqdhlkBh iqoZor d#u ns.ks ckcrpk esUMsVjh eukbZ gqdwe oknhP;k gDdkr o izfroknhP;k fo#) ns.;kr ;kok- c- oknh vU; T;k dk;ns’khj ekx.khpk gDdnkj vlsyh rh oknhl ns.;kr ;koh- 3. Perusal of the prayer clause in the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has sought relief of mandatory injunction 3 945-wp-1838-2024 directing the respondent no.2/Gram Panchayat to fill up the canal dug over public road, which is earmarked in the plot map. This is the only relief which is sought in the suit. 4. The applicants who are owners of adjoining lands filed application for addition of their names as parties in the suit alleging that there is a likelihood of plaintiff committing encroachment on the public road. It is obvious that no persons including the plaintiff has any right to encroach public property and particularly any public road. However, perusal of prayer clause will indicate that the only relief sought by the plaintiff is that the canal dug on the road should be filled up and the road should be restored to its original position. Apart from this, the plaintiff is not seeking any relief. As regards the allegations that the plaintiff is making construction over the road, perusal of the plaint will indicate that the plaintiff has also not sought injunction against the Gram Panchayat regarding the construction activity. The alleged construction that the plaintiff is making so also the alleged encroachment that he is likely to make is not subject matter of the suit. In the event, if the petitioners have any grievance with respect to the same, it will be open for them to avail of such remedies as are 4 945-wp-1838-2024 available in law. 5. However, having regard to the prayers in the said suit, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court was right in rejecting the application for addition of parties since the petitioners do not appear to be necessary or even proper parties to the suit. The judgment in the matter of N. Anantha Reddy Vs Anshu Kathuria and Ors dated 02.12.2013 will not take the case of the petitioners any further since subject matter of the suit is not any construction activity but only a prayer for mandatory injunction for restoring the road to the original position. It must also be stated that the public road with respect to which relief of mandatory injunction is sought by the plaintiff/respondent no.1, is also a public road as per the petitioners. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) Rushikesh/2025