Megha 27_wp_2694_2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2694 OF 2019 M/s. Pawan Developers ...Petitioner V/s. M/s. D.J. Builders & Developers and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Mr. Ayush Khandelwal, Ms. Namrata Patkar i/b. M/s. TRD Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Omkar Nagwekar for Respondent No.1. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 20 October 2018 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Kalyan rejecting Application at Exhibit- 65 taken out by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for its impleadment as party to the Suit. 2) I have hard Mr. Narvekar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Nagwekar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No. 1 of 3 30 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39987 Megha 27_wp_2694_2019 3) It appears that the Plaintiff claims rights in respect of the suit property on the strength of Developement Agreement dated 25 March 1994. By notice dated 16 August 2007, the land owner (Defendant No.1) terminated the Developement Agreement dated 25 March 1994 executed in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 immediately executed further Developement Agreement dated 19 November 2007 in favour of Defendant No.3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No.538 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the Developement Agreement dated 25 March 1994 executed in its favour is valid and binding, challenging termination notice dated 16 August 2007 and seeking a declaration for setting aside Development Agreement dated 19 November 2007 executed in favour of Defendant No.3. The Plaintiff has also sought injunction against the Defendants from obstructing activity of construction on the suit property. During pendency of the Suit, Defendant No.3 executed further Developement Agreement with the Petitioner on 24 April 2009. In his capacity as transferee pendente lite, the Petitioner applied to the Court for its impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. 4) In my view, it is necessary to have presence of the Petitioner in the Suit since the Plaintiff has challenged Developement Agreement dated 19 November 2007 executed in favour of Defendant No.3. This Court did notice submission made on behalf of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.3 does not support the Petitioner. This makes position of the Petitioner vulnerable and gives rise to a speculation that Defendant No.3 may settle the Suit with the Plaintiff. If Defendant No.3 does not Page No. 2 of 3 30 September 2026 Megha 27_wp_2694_2019 defend prayer clause (e) in the Plaint and if the same is granted, the same would have direct impact on validity of the Petitioner’s Developement Agreement dated 25 April 2009. Considering these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, entry of the Petitioner in the Suit becomes necessary. 5) In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 20 October 2018 is set aside. The Petitioner’s Application at Exhibit-65 is made absolute in terms of prayers made therein. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file written statemnet in the Suit within a period of four weeks. 6) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. All contentions of the parties on merits are experessly kept open. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 30 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 15:10:36