Keshav Shinde, died, L.Rs v. Sachin

CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 3rd May, 2011 PER COURT : The Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has exercised his powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the Letters Patent Appeal will not be maintainable. However, without going into that issue, we have perused the impugned order and we do not find any need to interfere with that order. The Trial Court has directed that all the heirs of defendant no.1 should be added as necessary parties to the array of defendants, in exercise of his powers under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, since they are necessary parties, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the orders passed. 2 L.P. A.No.161 of 2011

The learned Advocate for the appellants relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & ors. vs. Padmalatha & anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409. He submits that when the Court had earlier rejected the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for impleading these parties earlier, it was not proper for the Trial Court to suo motu direct that a particular party should be added to the array of the defendants. In our opinion, this judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants does not put an embargo on the powers to be exercised by the Trial Court under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The judgment is with respect to the powers to be exercised under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and is, therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances in this case. In these circumstances, Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/lpa161.11