Anand Sopan Kaspate v. Salim Saddrudin Khoja & Ors

for confirmation of interim relief, granted earlier. After hearing learned counsel appearing for respective parties, for some time, I asked learned counsel for respective parties whether they are ready for final hearing. The counsel appearing for both the sides readily accepted the suggestion, as argument for confirmation of interim relief and final hearing would be one and the same. In view of the consent given by the learned counsel for both the parties, I took both the Civil Revision Applications for final hearing. [3] Both the Civil Revision Applications challenge the common order dated 7th April, 2010 passed below application Exh.Nos. 164 and 174 in Spl. C.S. No.1235 Of 2007. By the said common order, both the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” for rejection of the plaint, and in the alternatively for the deletion of the names of Resp.Nos. 23 to 26 came to be rejected. [4] Brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Applications are as follows :- 3 Respondent No.1 Salim Saddrudin Khoja has filed Spl.Civil suit No.1235 Of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Pune. The applicant in C.R.A.No.429/2010 by name Anand Sopan Kaspate is original Deft.No.26 and applicants in C.R.A.No.459/2010 by names Shantaram Sopan Kaspate, Shankar Sopan Kaspate and Balu Sopan Kaspate are the original Deft.Nos. 23 to 25. Respondent No.1 in both the Civil Revision Applications is the original plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 23 in CRA No.429/2010 are original Deft. Nos. 1 to 22; where-as Resp.Nos. 24 to 26 are original Deft.Nos. 23 to 25. Resp.Nos.2 to 23 in CRA No.459/10 are original Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 and Resp.No.24 Anand Sopan Kaspate is original Deft.26. (For the sake of brevity and convenience, here-in-after parties are referred by their original title in the suit. ) [5] Dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.185, Hissa No.1 admeasuring 5 Hectors 58 Are, land bearing Survey No.181, Hissa No.6/1, admeasuring 1 Hector 66 Are, and land bearing Survey No.264, Hissa No.6, admeasuring 0.58 Are, situated with the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and more particularly at village Wakad, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune. (For the sake of brevity and convenience, above agri.lands are hereinafter referred to as “the suit lands”). [6] The plaintiff Salim Khoja has filed Spl.Civil Suit No.1235 Of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Jude,(Sr.Divn.), Pune for specific performance of Visar-Pavati / agreement dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004 initially against Deft.Nos.1 to 22 only who are the original owners of the suit lands. [7] There is no dispute that Deft.Nos.23 to 26 were the tenants in one of the suit land i.e. land bearing Survey No.185. It is the case of Deft. Nos.23 to 26 that after conclusion of proceedings U/Section 32G of “The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948” (In short, “the BT & AL Act”.) between themselves and the original owners Deft.No.s. 1 to 22, 4 Certificate U/Section 32M was issued in their favour on 22nd March, 2001. On the next day, i.e. on 23rd March, 2001, Mutation Entry No.8628 giving effect to the Certificate issued U/Section 32M of “the BT & AL Act” in the revenue record of land bearing Survey No.185 has been effected. [8] It is specific case of the plaintiff that, defendant Nos. 1 to 22 executed two Visar-Pavatis / agreements in his favour on 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004 respectively. (Defendant Nos.1 to 22 are hereinafter referred as “the original owners”.) [9] It is alleged that by first Visar Pavati dated 21st May, 2004, original owners (Deft.Nos. 1 to 22) agreed to sell their agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.185 and 181/6/1 and vide second Visar-Pavati dated 3rd August, 2004, they agreed to sell land bearing Survey No.264/6 in his favour. According to the plaintiff, when asked for, the original owners refused to perform their part of the contract on 15th June, 2007. Therefore, he was constrained to file Spl.C.S. No. 1235 Of 2007 against them for specific performance of agreement on 18th July, 2007. In the suit, on 21st October, 2008 plaintiff has filed application Exh. No.130 under Order VI Rule 17 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” for amendment in prayer clause (c) and to implead Deft.No.s. 23 to 26 in the array of the defendants. Said application came to be allowed on 4th May, 2009 [10] Thereafter, Deft.Nos. 23 to 25 and Deft.No.26 filed applications Exh.No.174 and Exh.No.164 respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” for rejection of plaint and in the alternatively for deletion of their names from the array of a defendants. Those applications came to be filed mainly on the ground that, plaint does not disclose cause of action against these defendants. According to them in a suit for specific performance of contract in the absence of privity of contract between the plaintiff and these defendants, these defendants are not necessary parties to the suit. The learned 3rd Addl.Judge, SCC Pune & 5 Jt.Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Pune rejected applications filed at Exh.Nos. 164 and 174 in Spl.C.S.No. 1235/2007 by common order on 7th April, 2010. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said order, present Civil Revision Applications are preferred, which are being disposed of by this common order. [11] made following submissions :-> Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni learned counsel for the Applicants has Admittedly, Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 are the original owners of land Sv.No.185 and defendant Nos. 23 to 26 are the tenants in that land. Certificate U/Section 32M of “The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948” ( In short, BT & AL Act) was granted in favour of Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 on 22nd March, 2001 and by virtue of said Certificate they became owners in respect of this property. Suit is based on Visar-Pavatis / agreements dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004. On 22nd March, 2001 original owners i.e. Deft.Nos. 1 and 22 are already divested of the title to the suit land bearing Survey No.185, therefore, they did not have legal right and authority to enter into an agreement / contract with the plaintiff. He further submitted that, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 were not party to the contract which is alleged to have been executed between the plaintiff and Deft.Nos. 1 to 22, therefore, in such circumstances, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the the suit filed by plaintiff for specific performance of Visar-Pavati / agreement dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the Applicants thereafter took me through the pleadings and submitted that entire pleading does not disclose cause of action to proceed against these defendants. In these circumstances, according to him, the Trial Judge committed grave error in rejecting application Exh.Nos. 174 and 164 filed by Deft.Nos.23 to 25 and Deft.No.26 respectively. He relied upon Section 64 of “the BT & AL Act” to contend that, landlord / Ori.Owner could not have agreed to sell property 6 when admittedly there are tenant. To substantiate his submissions, he placed his reliance on the following reported cases :- I.T.C. Limited V/s. D.R.A.T., & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 (i) S.C. 634. (ii) M.V. “Sea success I” V/s. L&L. S.P. & Indemnity Assocn. Ltd., reported in AIR 2002 Bombay, 151. (iii) Kasturi V/s Iyyamperumal & Ors., reported in (2005) 6 S.C.C. 733. Lastly, he argued that, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and Civil Revision Applications deserve to be allowed. [12] Mr. Dani, learned counsel for original plaintiff argued the matter at length and supported the impugned order. He invited my attention to the averments made in plaint paragraph No.s. 6,7 and 8 and submitted that, plaintiff has made specific averments that, Deft. Nos. 23 to 26 are the tenants in land bearing Survey No.185. [13] Mr. Dani submitted that he has sought possession of the suit lands including land bearing Survey No.185 which is in possession of Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 and, therefore, for final and effectual adjudication of controversy involved in the suit, presence of these defendants is very much necessary. Lastly, he submitted that, trial court has approached the matter from correct point of view and, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference of this court in its limited jurisdiction U/Section 115 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908”. [14] Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, compilation of Revision Applications and ratio laid down in the cases, cited supra, I find merit in the Civil Revn.Applications. 7 [15] At the very outset, it is necessary to mention here that, in the present Revision Applications, we are concerned with only land bearing Survey No.185, admeasuring 5 Hector 58 Are, in which, admittedly, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 were the tenants. Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 were the original owners of said land. (For the sake of brevity and convenience, land SV.No.185 is hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”.) [16] Revenue record of disputed land clearly indicates that, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 had purchased the disputed property in a proceeding U/Section 32G of “the BT & AL Act” and subsequently, Certificate U/Section 32M was also issued. Said Certificate was issued on 22nd March, 2001 and same is annexed at page No.20 of the compilation of the C.R.A.No.429/2010. [17] Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of argument could not point out substantial material to dispute the Certificate issued by competent revenue authority U/Section 32M of “the BT & AL Act”. In that view of the matter, it can be safely taken that, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 have conclusively become the owner of the disputed land i.e. Survey No.185. [18] Page No.19 of the compilation of the CRA No.429/2010 is a extract of Mutation Entry No.8628 which was effected on 23rd March, 2001. This mutation entry clearly goes to show that, effect of certificate issued U/Section 32M of “the B.T.&.A.L.Act” was taken in the revenue record of the disputed land. The plaintiff has filed Spl.C.S.No.1235/2007 for specific performance of Visar-Pavatis / agreements dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004 initially against Deft.Nos. 1 to 22, who are the original owners of the suit lands and thereafter impleaded Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 in the suit. However, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 long before the year 2004, became the owners of the disputed land bearing Survey No.185. Thus, Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 are already divested of the title to the disputed land and subsequently same is passed in Deft.Nos. 23 to 26. In these circumstances, Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 have no concern what so ever with land Sv.No.185. They are no more owners of 8 the same, therefore, they could not have contracted to sell that property in favour of plaintiff by executing visar-pavati. Even if they have executed it; still same will not adversely affect the interest of Deft.Nos.23 to 26 in land bearing Survey No.185. [19] No one can dispute the proposition of law that while considering the application filed under Order VII rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” only averments in the plaint alongwith annexture, if any, are to be considered and veracity of the averment cannot be gone into. Order 7 Rule 11 of the “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” deals with rejection of the plaint. Six circumstances are provided in the Code under which the plaint can be rejected viz. (i) if it does not disclose a cause of action; if the valuation shown is not correct the law gives the (ii) plaintiff time to correct the valuation. Even then if the plaintiff fails to correct the same; (iii) when the plaint claim is correctly valued but no sufficient stamp paper is produced; (iv) cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred; (v) if the duplicate plaint is not filed; and the plaintiff shall present such copies of plaint as there (vi) are defendants in the suit and also pay the requisite process fee in the Court. If the plaintiff fails, the plaint has to be rejected. [20] Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is mainly based on the ground that plaint does not disclose cause of action, therefore, now let's see in the light of this proposition, whether plaint discloses cause of action to proceed against Deft.Nos. 23 to 26. Section 64 of “the BT & AL Act” deals with sale of the agricultural lands. For ready reference Section 64 is reproduced here-in-below ::- 9 SECTION 64 SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO PARTICULAR PERSON : (1) where a landlord intends to sell any land, he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price thereof. The tribunal shall thereupon determine the reasonable price of the land in accordance with the provisions of a section 63A. The tribunal shall also direct that the price shall be payable either in lump sum or in annual installments not exceeding six carrying simple interest at 4 ½ per cent per annum : provided that, in the case of sale of the land in favour of a permanent tenant when he is in possession thereof, the price shall be at six times the annual rent. After the tribunal has determined the reasonable price, the (2) landlord shall simultaneously in the prescribed manner make an offer (a) in the case of agricultural land - to the tenant in actual possession thereof, (i) notwithstanding the fact that such land is a fragment, (ii) to all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority in the case of dwelling house, or a site of a dwelling house (b) or land appurtenant to such house when such dwelling house, site or land is not used or is not necessary to carry on agricultural operations in the adjoining lands - to the tenant thereof; to the person residing in the village who is not in (i) (ii) possession of any dwelling house: provided that if there are more than one such person the offer shall be made to such person or persons and in such order of priority as the collector may determine in this behalf having regard to the needs of the following persons, namely - (i) (iii) (iv) (v) an agricultural labourer, an artisan, a person carrying on an allied pursuit, any other person in the village 10 (4) The person to whom such offer are made shall intimate to the (3) landlord within one month from the date of receipt of the offer whether they are willing to purchase the land at the price fixed by the Tribunal. (a) if only one person intimates to the landlord under sub section (3) his willingness to accept the offer made to him by the landlord under sub section (2) the landlord shall call upon such person by a notice in writing in the prescribed form to pay him the amount of the reasonable price determined by the tribunal or to deposit the same with the tribunal within one month or such further period as the landlord may consider reasonable from the date of receipt of the notice by such person. if more that one person intimates to the landlord under sub (b) section (3) their willingness to accept the offer made to them by the landlord under sub section (2), the landlord shall call upon by a notice in writing in the prescribed form the person having the highest priority in the order of priority given in sub section (2) to pay him the amount of the reasonable price determined by the tribunal or to deposit the same with the tribunal within one month or such further period as the landlord may consider reasonable from the date of receipt of the notice by such person. if the person to whom a notice is given by the landlord under sub (5) section (4) fails to pay amount of the reasonable price to the landlord or to deposit the same with the tribunal within the period referred to in sub section (4) such person shall be deemed to be not willing to purchase the land and the landlord shall call upon in the manner provided in sub section (4) the person who stands next highest in the order of priority and who has intimated his willingness to the landlord under sub section (3) (6) in any dispute arises under this section regarding (a) (b) (c) (d) the offer made by the landlord under sub section (2), of the notice given by the landlord under sub section (4) or (5) or the payment or deposit of the reasonable price, or the execution of the sale deed, such dispute shall be decided by the tribunal. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions (a) of this section a landlord may after obtaining the previous permission of the tribunal as provided in the next succeeding clause (b) sell any land notwithstanding the fact that such land is a fragment to the tenant in actual possession thereof at a price mutually agreed upon between him and the tenant subject to provisions of section 63A. 11 the landlord shall make an application in writing to the tribunal (b) for permission to sell the land at such price. On receipt of the application, the tribunal shall grant the permission if, on holding an inquiry, it is satisfied that the price has been, agreed to voluntarily by the tenant. any sale made in contravention of this section shall be (8) invalid. if a tenant refuses or failed to purchase the land or a (9) dwelling house offered to him under this section, and the land or the dwelling house, as the case may be, is sold to any person under this section, the landlord shall be entitled to evict such tenant and put the purchaser in possession. [21] Perusal of this section makes it clear that where a landlord intends to sell any land, he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price thereof and the tribunal is obliged to determine the reasonable price of the land in accordance with the provisions of a section 63A. Proviso to this section makes it clear that, in the case of sale of the land in favour of a permanent tenant when he is in possession thereof, the price shall be at six times the annual rent. Sub Section (2) makes it clear that, when the Tribunal has determined the reasonable price, the landlord in case of agricultural land is duty bound to make an offer to the tenant in actual possession thereof and thereafter to all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority list. Clause 8 of Section 64 specifically declares that any sale made in contravention of this section shall be invalid. [22] At this stage, it is necessary to make reference to the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. In plaint paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 are the tenants in the suit land. Perusal of the entire pleadings does not disclose that original owners Deft.Nos. 1 to 22 have proceeded U/Section 64 of BT & AL Act before execution of Visar-Pavati. It is possible to contend that, Visar-Pavati is an agreement to sell and that is not sale in toto. However, the plaintiff having accepted the status of Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 as a tenant in the disputed land, he could not have claimed any relief against them, in as much as 12 landlord is duty bound to sell the agricultural land to the tenant in possession thereof first and sale contrary to this provision is invalid. [23] The plaintiff has prayed for specific performance of contract and possession. For ready reference the prayer clauses are reproduced as under ::- (a) The Hon'ble court may be pleased to pas a decree for specific performance of the Visar-Pavati / agreement dt. 21-05- 04 and 03-08-04 executed between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other hand in respect of the properties described in para 1(A) to 1(C) above, directing the defendants nos. 1 to 22 to execute and register conveyances of the said properties in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver possession of the said properties to the plaintiff, by accepting balance price @ Rs.12 lacs per acre for properties described in para 1-A and 1-B above and Rs.9 lacs for the property described in para 1-C above. (b) in the event of defendants failing to execute and register conveyance as aforesaid, a court commissioner may kindly be appointed to execute and register the said conveyance in favour of plaintiff and to deliver actual physical possession of the properties described in para 1-A to 1-C above to the plaintiff. (c) the Hon'ble Cout may be pleased to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 26 their agents, person claiming through them, by an appropriate writ of perpetual injunction, from transferring / alienating / developing / creating third party interest and / or dealing with / disposing of / developing the properties described in para 1(A) to 1(C) above, in favour of any person whomsoever in any manner whatsoever, perpetually. 13 [24] Perusal of the prayer clause (a) shows that the plaintiff has sought specific performance of the Visar-Pavati from defendant Nos. 1 to 22. Though this plaint is amended, relief of specific performance is not claimed against Deft.Nos. 23 to 26. Prayer clause (b) discloses that, possession of the suit properties are claimed from defendants. Paragraph No.10 of the plaint deals with cause of action. Averments made in the said paragraph is reproduced as under :- Cause of action for the suit first arose on 21-05-04 and 03-08- 04, when the defendants entered into transaction with regard to the properties described in para 1(A) and 1(B) and 1(C) respectively with the plaintiff and accepted the substantial amounts by way of purchase price, it again arose from time to time, when the plaintiff called upon defendants to comply with the terms and conditions of Visar-Pavati, it again arose on 14- 06-07 when plaintiff learnt about intention of defendants and called upon them finally to complete the transaction and thereafter it finally arose on 15-06-07 when defendants flatly refused to complete the transaction and thereafter, the same is arising every day to day. [25] If cause of action coupled with the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses considered alongwith the other reliefs and averments in proper perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that the plaintiff has no cause of action to proceed in the suit as against defendant Nos. 23 to 26. By filing suit, the plaintiff is claiming specific performance of Visar-Pavatis / agreements dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004. Said Visar-Pavatis are executed between the plaintiff and Deft.Nos. 1 to 22. Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 are not parties to these Visar-Pavati. It is settled principle that it is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance of contract to decide the right, title and interest of the stranger in the suit property and same cannot be turned into a regular title suit. A third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of 14 different character. Reference can be made to the Kasturi V/s. Iyyamperumal, cited supra. [26] The real test to decide whether Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 are necessary parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff is, whether in the absence of these defendants suit can be effectively adjudicated.. A necessary party is a person or entity whose interests are at stake in the outcome of a lawsuit, whose absence as a party in the suit prevents a judgment on all issues. In the absence of the necessary party complete relief cannot be provided to existing parties. Considering over-all aspects of the case in hand, my answer to this question is in the negative. The plaintiff claims specific performance against Deft.Nos. 1 to 22. This claim is based on Visar- Pavatis / agreements dated 21st May, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004, to which, as stated in foregoing paras, Deft.Nos. 23 to 26, are not parties. Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 are the strangers to said transactions. If plaintiff ultimately proves that he is entitled for specific performance, then, decree will be passed in his favour and against Deft.Nos. 1 to 22. The plaintiff cannot seek possession of the disputed property from Deft. Nos. 23 to 26 as admittedly, in this property said defendants were the tenants and in their favour Certificate U/Section 32M of “the BT & AL Act” has been issued by the competent revenue authorities. Still for the sake of argument even if we assume that they have not became owner of said agricultural land by virtue of Certificate issued U/Section 32M of BT & AL Act, still they cannot be dispossessed without resorting to Section 85 of “the BT & AL Act” and jurisdiction of Civil Court in this regard is ousted in view of provisions of Section 85A of “the BT & AL Act”. [27] At this stage, Mr. Dani, learned counsel for plaintiff tried to point out that, plaintiff is claiming relief against Deft.Nos.1 to 26. According to him, acceptance of argument canvassed on behalf of Deft.Nos. 23 to 26 will amount to rejection of plaint in part; which is not permissible. 15 [28] Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the applicants in reply to this submission, relied upon ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of I.T.C. Limited V/s. D.R.A.T., & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 634 and submitted that, plaint can be rejected under the provisions of Order VII rule 11 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” as against some of the defendants. In para No.29, of case, cited supra, the court has observed thus :- “For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no cause of action even from the plaint allegations, against the appellant. Appeal allowed and the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) as against the appellant - 5th defendant.” In the case of M.V. “Sea success I” V/s. L&L. S.P. & Indemnity Assocn. Ltd., AIR 2002 Bombay, 151, the D.B. of this Court has observed as under :- The court has to see while exercising its power for rejection of plaint, which it must whether the allegations in the plaint as they stand, fail to prove the cause of action. While considering the question whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action or not, the court has to find out from the allegations made in the plaint itself and not beyond it as to whether a bogus, wholly vexatious or frivolous litigations has been initiated by the plaintiff or that the claim made by the plaintiff is a legally recognisable claim. What is required to be disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right to sue and failure to do so must necessarily entail in rejection of the plaint. In paragraph No.57 the D.B.of this court has observed as under :- We do not find any legal bar under Order 7 Rule 11 in rejecting the plaint against some of the defendants. [29] After going through the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as D.B. of this Court, in the cases cited supra, it is clear that there is no bar to reject plaint against some of the defendants, under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure,1908. 16 [30] The trial court rejected the applications filed by Deft.Nos. 23 to 25 and Deft.No.26 on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. The Trial Court also held that, plaintiff has pleaded cause of action against these defendants. Both the reasoning and grounds are factually incorrect. I have already held that, there is no cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff as against Deft.No.s. 23 to 26. Therefore, I am of the view that, for effective adjudication of the Spl.Civil Suit No.1235 Of 2008 presence of Deft.No.s. 23 to 26 is not necessary. A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. For completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, defendant Nos. 23 to 26 are not necessary parties to the suit. [31] In view of the discussion in foregoing paras, I am of the opinion that, impugned order cannot be sustained. Same is required to be quashed and set aside. Both Civil Revision Applications are accordingly disposed of by passing the following order ::- ORDER Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in (i) C.R.A. No. 429 of 2010. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in (ii) C.R.A. No. 459 Of 2010. (iii) Applications filed at Exh.Nos. 174 and 164 by Deft.Nos. 23 to 25 and Deft.No.26, respectively in Spl.Civil Suit No.1235 Of 2008 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Pune, are allowed. The plaint filed by the plaintiff is rejected as far as Deft. (iv) Nos. 23 to 26 are concerned. Necessary amendment shall be carried out within a (v) period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 17 (vi) Eight weeks time is granted to take appropriate steps to the Lower Court to give effect to this Order. [RANJIT MORE, J.]