1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1899 OF 2010. Ramesh Ratanlal Rathi -: versus :- Devidas Natthuji Thakre Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 22, 2010. Heard Smt. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent / plaintiff initially sought inclusion of names of partners as party defendants. Rejection of similar request in similar litigation between the parties vide Regular Civil Suit No. 89/2005 was questioned in Writ Petition No. 623/2008 and that rejection was set aside in that matter. After that rejection was set aside he was permitted to add the partners as party defendants. In Regular Civil Suit No. 48/2007 he filed Pursis Exh.32 and came up with a case that as the transaction was with petitioner/defendant only in his personal capacity the other partners had no concern. He therefore did not implead/join other persons as party defendants. Because of this the petitioner/defendant filed application under Order V Rule 11 of C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit on the ground that orders of the Court were not 2 obeyed. 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morshi has rejected that application by the impugned order dated 15.02.2010. Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel contends that having obtained orders of court and when those orders are still in force, the respondent/plaintiff cannot back away and had to implead parties. His failure to do so must entail the consequence as provided under Order 39 Rule 11 of C.P.C.. The Pursis filed by plaintiff vide Exh.32 shows a clear election made by him. He is pressing the claim in personal capacity against defendant. As the plaintiff is dominus litus, in this situation, I do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the trial Court. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.