:1: 8545.10-wp bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8545 OF 2010 Jagannath Nivrutti Ghadge & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Petitioners. Mr.Vitesh Vyas for Respondent No.3. CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI,J. DATE :- APRIL 29, 2011 P.C. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th July, 2010 vide which the application filed by respondent No.3 for impleading him as a party-defendant in the Suit filed by the present petitioners came to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit filed by the present petitioners is for simplicitor declaration against the Government that the suit property is exclusively in possession of the plaintiffs and the Government is ceased to have any right in the suit property. It is submitted that by no stretch of imagination, respondent No.3 could not have been permitted to be impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit. He further submits that an earlier application filed by the same party is also pending and hence, the second application is not tenable. 2. The jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a discretionary jurisdiction. One of the grounds for allowing the application under order Order 1 Rule 10 is, that the presence of such a party is necessary :2: 8545.10-wp in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The learned Trial Court has found that the suit land has been allotted to the applicant – respondent No.3. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration various documents including the allotment letters by the Government and challan regarding the deposit of substantial amount. In so far as the second contention regarding the second application being not tenable in view of the pendency of the first application is concerned, a perusal of the name on the said application would reveal that the earlier application is filed on behalf of the Dongarai Sagreshwar Cooperative Sugar Factory whereas the present application is on behalf of Cane Agro Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3. Merely because an application of respondent No.3 is allowed by the Court, it does not amount to accepting the case of the said respondent. After the said party is added, the Court would be required to consider the case on merits and decide it in accordance with law. 4. In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)