-WP-11565-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11565 OF 2026 Juned Nasuruddin Mestri ..Petitioner Versus Ahmed Umar Mestri (Deceased) Through his Legal Heirs and Ors …Respondents Mr. Sachin S Punde, with Suraj Jadhav, Mansi Bansode & Atharva Unde, for the Petitioner. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Sachin S Punde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 2nd May 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, whereby Defendant Nos. 9 and 10, the officers of Panvel Municipal Corporation, were deleted from the array of the Defendants in the suit instituted by the Petitioner for declaration and perpetual injunction. 3. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 - Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 filed an Application seeking rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) and the deletion of Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 from the array of the Defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, as there was no cause of action to implead them ARS 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.09 20:00:11 +0530 -WP-11565-2026.DOC in the suit seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs qua the private parties. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to partly allow the Application and direct the deletion of Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 from the array of the Defendants by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, whilst declining to reject the Plaint. 5. Mr. Sachin Punde, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned Judge has exercised the discretion to delete Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 from the array of the Defendants despite there being adequate averments in the Plaint to the effect that Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 had not paid any heed to the repetitive complaints lodged by the Plaintiff in regard to the alleged encroachment committed by the co- Defendants. Mr. Punde invited attention of the Court to the prayer clauses (d) and (e), wherein, according to Mr. Punde, the prayers qua Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are implicit. 6. I am afraid to accede to the submissions of Mr. Punde. 7. A meaningful reading of the Plaint, makes it abundantly clear that the suit suffers from multiple infirmities including mis-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of causes of action. This Court is of the prima facie view that the claim for declaration of ownership which is the foundation of the injunctive reliefs, ought to have examined by the Trial Court more minutely. ARS 2/3 -WP-11565-2026.DOC 8. The claim for ownership rests on a purported Promissory Note (opufpB~Bh) executed on 16 th November 1949 by the predecessor-in-title of Defendant No.1 in favour of grandfather of the Plaintiff, who was allegedly the original holder of the suit property, to convey the property in the event of failure to repay the amount purportedly advanced by the grandfather of the Petitioner to his son, Ahmed, the predecessor-in-title of Defendant No.1. Prima facie the claim is tenuous. 9. In any event, even in regard to the alleged encroachment by the co-Defendants and inaction of Defendant Nos. 9 and 10, it would be suffice to note that the Plaintiff claims that the co-Defendants have encroached upon a private property purportedly owned by the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The learned Civil Judge was thus fully justified in observing that, the suit was essentially for removal of encroachment from the private property and not in respect of alleged unauthorised development. At any rate, Defendant nos. 9 and 10 who were sought to be impleaded in their official capacity, were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Thus no fault can be found with the impugned order. 10. The Petition thus stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 3/3