IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 756 OF 2008 SMT. PREETABAI SURYAKANT SHETGAONKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. KASHINATH DATTA SHETGAONKAR AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd January, 2009 P.C.:- Heard Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 29-9-2008. The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs in R. C. C. No.11/2005 filed by them against Defendant Nos.1 to 8 for injunction simpliciter. The said Defendants filed a written statement and contended that they were the caretakers of Defendant Nos.9 and 10, the newly added Defendants, and at their behest, the learned trial Court allowed the impleadment of Defendant Nos.9 and 10. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiffs are the dominus litus and the suit was for injunction simpliciter and adding the newly added Defendants, namely Defendant Nos.9 and 10 would complicate the issue and convert a mere suit for injunction into a title suit. Learned Counsel further submits that the said Defendant Nos.9 and 10 had also filed a suit against the present Plaintiffs claiming title to the subject property and an injunction application filed by them came to be rejected. The learned trial Court has directed the impleadment of Defendant Nos.9 and 10 in view of the plea taken by Defendant Nos.1 to 8 as according to them the said Defendant Nos.9 and 10 are the real owners of the subject property and Defendant Nos.1 to 8 are their caretakers. In other words, Defendant Nos.1 to 8 interfered in the subject property on behalf of the said newly added Defendants. If that be so, the presence of the said newly added Defendants will certainly enable the trial Court to effectually decide the controversy between the parties and in that view of the matter the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Petition therefore is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.