1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3471 OF 2009 Maruti Sadashiv More .. Petitioner versus Shantilal Vithaldas Bafana & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the petitioner. Mr.R.N.Sanghavi for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8th September 2009. P.C.: . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner desires to make an application to implead his brother as a party defendant to the suit. He seeks permission to withdraw the application at Exhibit 28 with liberty to file an application for impleading his brother as a party defendant. The said prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 2. The order impugned has been passed on application at Exhibit 28 filed by the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. By application at Exhibit 28, he prayed for impleading his brother Bhiku Sadashiv More as 2nd plaintiff. The said application was rejected by the impugned order. It is difficult to find fault with the impugned order as the petitioner’s brother has not made any 2 application to implead himself as a party plaintiff. However, the petitioner cannot be prevented from making an application for impleading his brother as a party defendant. If such application is made, it will be open for the 1st respondent to file a reply to the said application and to contest the same. 3. The impugned order passed below the application at Exhibit 28 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application at Exhibit 28 with liberty to file a fresh application for impleading his brother as the party defendant. 4. All contentions of the parties on such application which may be filed by the petitioner are expressly kept open. 5. The trial Court will decide such application in accordance with law. (A.S.OKA,J)