3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8740 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2005 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 27.08.2009 1. This is an application filed by original respondent Nos. 3(1) to 3 (5) in Civil Revision Application No.135 for adding them back in said Civil Revision Application No.135 of 2005. 2. Heard Adv. Shri S.A. Kulkarni for the applicants and Adv. Shri S.S. Wagh for the respondent. 3. It appears that respondent No. 1 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (M.I.D.C.) in Civil Revision Application No.135 of 2005 is not made party to this application. Now, Adv. Shri S.A. Kulkarni for the applicants seeks leave to add M.I.D.C. as party. Leave granted. The amendment 3 be carried out forthwith. Adv. Shri S.S. Dande waives notice for added respondent. 4. Adv. Shri S.S. Wagh for respondent No.2 states that he does not want to file reply affidavit to this application, but wants to submit orally. Adv. Shri Dande for respondent No.1 states that he has no objection if this application is allowed. In this background I proceed to hear this Civil Application on merit. 5. Adv. Shri Wagh stated that he is dominus litis of Civil Revision Application No.135 of 2005 and it is for him to decide who should be party. To some extent it is possible to accept that generally plaintiff or appellant has his own discretion, but at the same time when he is challenging an order in which there are some other parties and against wishes of the parties he cannot delete them. No doubt, present applicants were parties to M.A.R.J.I. Application No. 200 of 2002 as respondent Nos. 2(1), 2(3) to 2 (6). Even in the present application, 3 initially they were added as respondent Nos. 3(1) to 3 (5), but subsequently they were deleted on oral request in Revision Application on 18.06.2007, on the ground that they were formal parties. In the facts and circumstances of case there is no reason to keep away present applicants while hearing Civil Revision Application and even if the revision applicants do not desire to add them as respondents, present applicants shall be heard as interveners in the present application on merit. To that extent, this Civil Application is allowed. The learned advocate for present applicants is permitted to make his submissions in Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2005 is heard. 6. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ca8740.09