IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO 7826 OF 2008 Smt. Balvinder Kaur Mohan Singh .. Petitioner V/s. BMC & Ors .. Respondents Shishir Joshi for Petitioner Vinod Mahadik for Respondent No 1 A.R. Pande for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATE : 06th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. No fault can be found with the discretionary powers exercised by the Court below in the fact situation of the present case. The Court below has found that the Respondent No. 2 is a necessary party. However, that is in the context of finding recorded that the Plaintiff is claiming possession over the same premises and seeking license under Shop Act thereto. The Trial Court was obviously conscious about the dispute between the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 herein. It is the Plaintiff who had filed suit for injunction against the Respondent No. 2 in which clear finding of 1 the fact has been recorded, though prima facie view at interlocutory stage, that the Petitioner / Plaintiff failed to substantiate the factum that he was in physical possession of disputed property at the relevant time. In present case, in the suit filed by the petitioner / Plaintiff, he asserts that he is and was in possession of the disputed property and on that basis, the correctness of the approach of the corporation in assuming to the contrary is put in issue. In that sense, the factum of possession of the suit premises is being asserted by the Petitioner / Plaintiff even in the present suit, for which reason even if the argument of the petitioner that the Respondent 2 is not a necessary party is to be accepted, it cannot be gain said that Respondent No. 2 is a proper party in context of issue of possession. Thus understood the opinion recorded by the Court below will have to be up held in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J) 2