1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8574 OF 2009 Baburao s/o Mahadu Salgare Petitioner Versus 1 Laxmibai w/o Uttamrao Salgare and another Respondents Mr.A.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.G.Salgare, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application presented by petitioner-third party applicant for his impleadment as party defendant in the suit filed by Respondent No.1 herein – original plaintiff has been turned down by the trial Court in view of order dated 03.11.2009, below Exhibit-15 in R.C.S. No.119/2007. Said order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 Respondent No.1-plaintiff presented suit claiming decree of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of an area to the extent of 1 hectare 92 ares out of land G.No.97. Plaintiff has also claimed decree for recovery of possession of 41 ares land from defendant – Respondent No.2 herein. 3 The petitioner – third party applicant contends that he is in possession of the property claimed by plaintiff in the suit and as such, he is 2 necessary party. Plaintiff has opposed the application contending that third party applicant is neither necessary nor proper party. 4 I have perused the application as well as impugned order passed by the trial Court. Plaintiff, who has presented suit, claiming declaratory decree as well as recovery of possession, is a master of her suit and she has liberty to implead the party against whom she has right to claim the relief. It is the choice of the plaintiff to frame her suit claiming relief based on the pleadings recorded in the plaint. If the plaintiff herself, on her own, has not impleaded the petitioner – third party applicant as party defendant to the suit, it would be her decision that would prevail and plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead third party applicant as party defendant to the suit. The decree, that would be passed in the suit, would be binding to the parties to the suit and obviously would not bind third party applicant. 5 In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that third party applicant – petitioner herein cannot be said to be either necessary or proper party to the suit and decree, that would be passed in the suit, obviously would not bind right, title and entitlement of concerned third party applicant. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 6 Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp857409