- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 362 OF 2007 IN S.C. SUIT No.1959 OF 2004 Ms. Kusum M. Jain & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Mrs. Shalan M. Kanhere & Ors. Respondents M/s. Kiran Jain & Co., Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 PC . The trial Court has allowed the Chamber Summons to implead the petitioners as parties to the suit, which is filed by the first respondent for a declaration that a power of attorney and release deed purportedly executed is vitiated by fraud and fabricated, so also it is not signed by her. She claims to be the second wife of the deceased and has moved against the step daughters. It is in such circumstances that the property which has come to the petitioners is part of the suit property itself and the alienation thereof is - 2 - something which would necessitate presence of the petitioners as well. One of the object of such provision is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In such circumstances, I do not think the discretion exercised by the trial Court in allowing the amendment and also impleading the petitioners is in any way vitiated, so as to call interference under section 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. Needless to say that petitioners are at liberty to file written statement and raise the issue of limitation and maintainability of the suit and I have no doubt in my mind that the amendment order would be construed as subject to the same. Sd/- [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J.]