1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8410 OF 2009 1 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Authorized officer Arun Narayanrao Shirbhate age 54 years, occ. service r/o Aurangabad MIDC Industrial Area Satyam Talkji Road, Near DIC Office Railway station road, Aurangabad. 2 Ashok Nanaji Choudhari age 49 years, occ. service as Regional Officer r/o Chikalthana MIDC CFC, Near Telephone office Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. 3 Chandrakant Panditrao Deshpande age 56 years, occ. service as Assistant Engineer r/o Plot no. 130, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 Nathaji s/o Runjaji Hiwrale age 55 years, occ. contractor r/o Ambedkar Nagar, Aurangabad. 2 Police Inspector MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. V.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for respondent no. 2. Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== 2 CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Respondent / original plaintiff has presented a suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 689/2009 claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein. In the pending suit, an application was tendered seeking interim order and on consideration of the contentions raised by the plaintiff / respondent herein, the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo in view of the order passed on 27-11-2009. Interim order passed by the trial court is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a serious grievance in respect of incorrect description of the parties recorded by plaintiff in the suit. According to the petitioners, although the order of status quo granted by the court on 27-11-2009 affects the rights of the MIDC, MIDC was not 3 impleaded as party to the suit. The names of the officers mentioned as defendants in the suit also give incorrect description. It has also been wrongly demonstrated to the trial court that the defendants are duly served and, inspite of proper service, they are absent. However, observation made by the trial court in that regard is incorrect that due to incorrect description of the defendants, the notices could not be served on them. These aspects are not considered by the trial court while deciding the issue in respect of grant of interim relief afresh. Learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff has stated that an application seeking amendment to the plaint has been tendered to the court and MIDC would be impleaded as party to the proceedings. The petitioner therefore shall cause appearance before the trial court and place contentions before the court. Trial court shall after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, shall determine the issue afresh. The petitioner herein are also entitled to raise grievance in respect of incorrect description of the parties so also maintainability of the suit. In this view of the matter, order passed by the trial court in the pending suit on 27-11-2009 is quashed and set aside. Trial court is directed to decide the pending application seeking interim order against the defendants, afresh after extending an opportunity of hearing to the defendants in the suit including the petitioners herein. Trial court shall consider all the issues and 4 contentions those would be raised by the petitioners herein before the court. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8410.09.odt