=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.3959 OF 2008 NO.3959 OF 2008 NO.3959 OF 2008 Mahadeo T. Bagdure and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Bhagwat J. Jogdankar ...Respondent Mr Vijay Killedar i/b Mr Nitin Jamdar for Petitioners. Ms Pallavi N.D. for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C.- 1. The petitioners have challenged the order whereby the application made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected. Considering the averments made, this Court issued notice and observed on 4th August 2008 that so far as prayer regarding deletion of plaintiff No.1 from the array of parties is concerned, there is substance in the stand taken by the petitioners and in view of the plea specifically raised by the defendants of misjoinder, the plaintiff No.1 has no locus to file suit. In view of the objection raised, the deletion of plaintiff No.1 is granted as prayed and it needs no =2= further elaboration. 2. So far as the averments in the plaint are concerned, considering the issue involved and as the evidence is not yet commenced, I see no reason to reject the second prayer regarding amendment in the plaint. Keeping all points open, I am inclined to grant this amendment as prayed. 3. Petition is therefore accordingly allowed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA J. )