1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Revision Application No.98 of 2007 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri H.V.Tungar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the Respondents. 2. This Revision Application is against the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Nandurbar, on an application at Exh.7 filed by present Appellant for adding him as party to Regular Darkhast No.11 of 2002 which was filed consequent upon decision in Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 1989 (Dhule Number) which was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 2 92 of 1990 on transfer to Nandurbar Court. 3. Application Exh.7 was rejected by learned Judge on the ground that the present appellant is totally stranger to the suit and, therefore, he cannot be added to the Darkhast since he has no locus standi. A copy of the decree in suit is at Exh.A at page 14 of this appeal memo and it shows that one Uttamlal s/o Latilal Shah has filed above referred suit in his individual capacity and not as a member or partner in any partnership or otherwise. 4. Plaintiff Uttamlal claimed that he was running a saw mill and he had a right to run the same. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, 3 which is a part of said decree at Exh. A, the plaintiff has made certain allegations against Amrutlal Ratilal Shah. It is alleged that there were differences between the plaintiff and said Amrutlal. Present appellant Sanjaykumar appears to be the son of said Amrutlal. It is also contended that licence of saw mill was renewed in the name of the plaintiff and plaintiff had prerogative to seek renewal from time to time. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff had subsequently formed a partnership firm with Amrutlal under the name and style "Ambika Saw Mill". In paragraph 4, it is further stated, as can be seen from copy of the decree filed at Exh.4 along with this appeal memo that Amrutlal had expired 4 when the suit was filed and it was prerogative of the plaintiff to get renewal of the licence but Amrutlal raised disputes with the plaintiff and that without any justifiable reasons licence of the plaintiff was arrested (sic withheld) without giving any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, plaintiff Uttamlal has filed suit for declaration that he has a right to carry on business etc. Darkhast pertains to execution of the decree passed in the suit. Legal heirs of Amrutlal were not parties to suit. 5. In the circumstances present appellant Sanjaykumar son of Amrutlal and who had filed application at Exh.7 in above Regular Darkhast No.11 of 2001 5 claiming independent right and not as legal heir of Uttamlal, in my opinion, cannot be added as party to the Darkhast proceedings, more so when he was not a party to the suit itself. Appellant Sanjaykumar will, therefore, have to take out appropriate proceedings for protecting his right. 6. Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed. Date:23/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra98.07