IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 477 OF 2006 SHRI SHIVAJI SHABA NAIK GAONKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI GANABA YESHWANT DESAI AND 33 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Zeller D'Souza, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 16. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 17th July, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 3. This petition is directed against order dated 14/08/2006 by which the petitioners' application for intervention in RCA No. 87/2004 has been rejected. 4. Respondents no. 1 to 16 had filed RCS No. 36/1991 for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of the suit property namely part of Survey No. 88/1 and the said Civil Suit came to be dismissed by order dated 30/06/2004 against which the said respondents filed RCA No. 87/2004. In the meantime, it appears that there was some acquisition in respect of the said property and respondents no. 1 to 16 as well as the intervenors were parties to the same. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in LAC No. 127/1992 which came to be disposed of by the learned District Judge by order dated 15/07/2004, by which it was held that the parties should secure a judgment from the Civil Court to prove their title in respect of survey holding no. 88/1. The petitioners instead of choosing the said remedy as indicated by the learned District Judge in the said LAC No. 127/1992 sought an application for intervention in the said RCA No. 87/2004 which was opposed by respondents no. 1 to 16 and which came to be rejected by the impugned order. 5. Shri Usgaonkar on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 16 (plaintiffs) submits that they cannot be compelled to fight against persons against whom they do not wish to fight. 6. Apart from the findings rendered by the learned District Judge in RCA no. 87/2004, the petitioners could not certainly compel respondents no. 1 and 17 as plaintiffs (petitioners) that they should also be parties to their suit. After all respondents no. 1 to 16 as plaintiffs are the Dominus litis and could not be compelled to proceed against persons against whom they did not desire to proceed. 7. In the above view of the matter, I find that there is no merit in this petition and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH