JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for the Respondent nos. 1a to 1d while none appeared for the respondents no.2a to 2c. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme waives service on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1a to 1d. 3. The petitioners by the present petition seek to take exception to the order dated 12/09/2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda pursuant to which the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C. came to be dismissed in a suit for demolition, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. It was the contention of Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the said suit was filed by the petitioners against the original defendants no.1 and 2 for the stated reliefs and which came to be adjourned sine die in view of the mundkarial issue. The original defendant no.2 expired on 09/04/1999 and, therefore, an application was moved within time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record. However, due to oversight, the widow of the original defendant no.2 namely Shobhavati remained to be brought on record. In the meantime, she moved an application dated 29/06/2013 seeking to intervene as a necessary party which was however opposed by the petitioners and came to be dismissed pursuant to the order of the trial Court dated 09/10/2014. 4. It was his further contention that there was an illegal construction carried out in the suit property by the defendants in May 2015 and the relief of temporary injunction was sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 filed their Written Statement in which they took a specific plea that Shobhavati was a necessary party and that the construction was carried out by her. It is pursuant to the specific pleading that the petitioners moved an application for impleadment of the said Shobhavati by recourse to an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. This application was, however, opposed by the legal heirs of the original defendants no.2a to 2c on the premise that it was bad in law, frivolous and not tenable. It is pursuant to the specific pleading that the petitioners moved an application for impleadment of the said Shobhavati by recourse to an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. This application was, however, opposed by the legal heirs of the original defendants no.2a to 2c on the premise that it was bad in law, frivolous and not tenable. It was their case that the petitioners had deliberately not brought the widow of the defendant no.2 on record and that the alleged mistake committed by the petitioners in carrying out the amendment to the cause title could not be assigned to the Court Clerk. The impugned Order as passed was therefore not liable to be interfered with in the petition. 5. Shri K. Noorani, learned Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme for the respondent nos.1a to 1d, however, submitted that he would leave the matter to the orders of the Court. There was no contest whatsoever by the respondents no.2a to 2c despite due opportunity. 6. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that the petitioners had maintained the suit for permanent injunction, demolition and consequential reliefs against the respondents and in which an issue of mundkarship was raised on behalf of the defendants and pursuant to which the suit was adjourned sine die. There was no particular dispute that the defendant no.2 had expired on 09/04/1999 and an application moved by the petitioners to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record on 30/06/1999. However, it is equally a matter of record that the children of the deceased defendant no.2 alone were brought on record and the widow remained to be brought on record and in that status the proceedings continued. It was not particularly in dispute that the widow of the deceased defendant no.2 namely Shobhavati had sought to intervene in the proceedings as a necessary party and that at that stage the petitioners had opposed her impleadment and the learned trial Court by an order dated 09/10/2014 dismissed the application. Rather, the petitioners had taken a plea while opposing the intervention application that her intervention was not necessary and her non- joinder was not fatal to the suit as it was not one for declaration. Rather, the petitioners had taken a plea while opposing the intervention application that her intervention was not necessary and her non- joinder was not fatal to the suit as it was not one for declaration. Simultaneously, a plea was taken that due to oversight the name of the widow remained to be brought on record as his legal heir and as she was not residing in the mundkarial house. 7. Besides, the case of the petitioners that illegal construction was undertaken by the respondents in May 2015 and which compelled them to press for injunctory reliefs was not particularly disputed on behalf of the respondents who took a specific plea in defence that the said Shobhavati was a necessary party to the suit whom the petitioners had failed to bring on record as the widow of the deceased defendant no.2 and that the alleged illegal structure alone was in possession, occupation and enjoyment of Shobhavati and that she had singularly carried out the extension thereto. It is in view of the specific defence taken by the respondents that the impleadment of the said Shobhavati became necessary as otherwise the very purpose of filing the suit for the stated reliefs would stand defeated. It is not as if the petitioners had not taken the steps to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 on record. The learned trial Court held that the petitioners were seeking to implead her after a lapse of 17 years on the demise of her husband. The learned trial Court was unduly swayed by the order dated 09/10/2014 passed on the application for intervention moved by the said Shobhavati who observed that the trial Court was likely to sit in judgment over the said order or that the said act would amount to an act of judicial impropriety. 8. The learned trial Court was unduly swayed by the order dated 09/10/2014 passed on the application for intervention moved by the said Shobhavati who observed that the trial Court was likely to sit in judgment over the said order or that the said act would amount to an act of judicial impropriety. 8. Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. empowers the court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, to order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as the plaintiff or the defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as the plaintiff or the defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The powers of the Court in terms of the Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. are of wide amplitude and therefore considering the specific plea taken by the contesting defendant no.2 in the suit that the said Shobhavati was a necessary party and particularly that it was she who had carried out the alleged encroachment/ extension, the trial Court ought to have allowed her impleadment notwithstanding an order earlier passed in the said proceedings rejecting her application for intervening in the proceedings on the ground set out by her since in the meantime the petitioners as the plaintiffs had categorically carved a case that illegal construction was being carried out in the suit property in 2015 and the defendants had met the case that the said illegal construction was done by the said Shobhavati. The learned Trial Court in the changed circumstances ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. which it failed to exercise. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the petitioners' application for the reasons recorded therein cannot be sustained requiring the intervention of this Court. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside.