(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10743 OF 2010 Digambar s/o. Gopalji Raval, Age : 76 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Municipal House No.4-5-64, Jadhav Mandi, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Sau. Jayashree w/o. Sham Hundiwala, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. &9-B, New Shantiniketan Colony, Jawahar Colony Road, Aurangabad. 2. Smt. Nermalabai w/o. Nagindas Shah, Age : Major, Occupation : Household, R/o. Chauraha, Aurangabad. 3. Ashok s/o. Nagindas Shah, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 4. Narendra s/o. Nagindas Shah, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. (2) 5. Gunwanti w/o. Girish Shah, Age : Major, Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. 6. Chandrawandan s/o. Nagindas Shah, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 7. Ramlal s/o. Pannalal Shah, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 8. Laldas s/o. Pannalal Shah, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.8. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for (3) final hearing by consent of parties. 2. As no order adverse to the interest of respondent nos. 2 to 7 is being passed, service of notice upon Rule, on the said respondents is dispensed with. 3. Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / plaintiff points out that suit filed by the petitioner is for cancellation of lease deed executed by the petitioner in favour of defendant nos.2 to 8 i.e. respondent nos.2 to 8. In it, respondent no.1 filed application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking her impleadment on the ground that she is member of joint Hindu family. That application has been erroneously granted and her joint family status is not relevant here. 4. Mr. M.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, is supporting the order. According to him, respondent no.1 being daughter in the family, is entitled to share and she has already filed a Special Civil Suit for partition. He, therefore, states that the trial court has correctly appreciated the controversy. 5. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.8, states that she has got no comments to offer. (4) 6. The filing of Special Civil Suit by respondent no.1 by itself is not decisive in the present matter. The suit here is simpliciter for cancellation of lease deed and how interest of respondent no.1 is getting affected has not been demonstrated. In any case, as respondent no.1 is not party to the suit, her interest, if any, cannot be prejudiced by any adjudication in that suit. In the impugned order, the trial court has not correctly considered the controversy. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-3-2010, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 38/D in Regular Civil Suit No. 529/2005, is quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit 38/D in Regular Civil Suit No. 529/2005 is dismissed. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE bgp/wp10743