1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6084 OF 2008 Vijay Bahadu S. Maurya .. Petitioner Vs Om Prakash Mishra & Another .. Respondents S.K. Sthalekar for the petitioner CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 28th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is the third defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the first respondent. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the decree for possession was passed in favour of the first respondent. The present petitioner (original defendant no. 3) preferred an appeal for challenging the decree for possession. In the said appeal, the present petitioner made an application praying that he may be permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal and implead the original second defendant as a party appellant. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the appellate court. Rma wp6084-08.sxw 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second defendant also suffered a decree as he is a defendant to the suit filed by the first respondent. He submitted that second defendant was carrying on business along with the petitioner / appellant and the decree which may be passed in appeal will affect the said second defendant. He submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent, if application is allowed. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the petitioner is the third defendant. Only the petitioner preferred an appeal against a decree for possession. The decree for possession was passed on 15th December, 2006. The application on which the impugned order has been passed is made by the petitioner / appellant for impleading the second defendant as appellant to the said appeal. The said application was filed in July, 2007. The appeal at the instance of 2nd defendant was barred by limitation on the date of filing the said application. 4. The second defendant has not preferred any appeal for Rma wp6084-08.sxw 3 challenging the decree. The second defendant did not apply to the appellate court for impleading himself as an appellant along with the present petitioner. Therefore, the application, at the instance of the present appellant for impleading second defendant as an appellant has been rightly rejected by the appellate court. No interference is called for in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. JUDGE Rma wp6084-08.sxw