1 wp 8598.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2011 Ashabai Parmeshwar Panad .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and others .. Respondents Shri P. N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri M. S. Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who filed suit for declaration challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation and for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit present respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleading her as party. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Sonpethkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 wp 8598.11 submits that the respondent No. 2 cannot be impleaded as a party. No relief is sought against the respondent No. 2. The only relief is sought against the Municipal Corporation who had issued the notice to demolish the construction. In view of that the respondent No. 2 cannot claim any right to be impleaded in view of provisions of Order 01 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent No. 2 herself has sold the property to the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 had also filed a suit for injunction, so also claiming possession. The said suit was unconditionally withdrawn. Now the respondent No. 2 cannot get any right. This aspect has not been considered by the Court. The learned counsel further submits that if the party has no right, title and interest in the property and if the plaintiff has not sought relief against it, then in such circumstances, such person cannot be added as party. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4222 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Bala Manohar Naik Vs. Corporation of City of Panji and another reported in 2011 AIR CC 124 (BOM) (Goa 3 wp 8598.11 Bench). 3. Shri M. S. Choudhari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supports the order. 4. No doubt, the plaintiff is the dominus litis of her case. It is the choice of the plaintiff as to who the defendants should be. The discretion is vested with the Court to add or delete a particular person as a party and as observed by the Apex Court in a case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd referred supra, the said discretion is a judicial discretion and to be exercised according to the reason and fair play. While considering the application for addition of party, the Court would be required to consider the right, title and interest of the person making an application for addition of the party. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is claiming her right over the suit plot, qua, the present respondent No. 2 i. e. the third party applicant. It does not appear that there is registered conveyance on record. In view of this fact prima facie the respondent No. 2 can be said to have some interest in the plot. Moreover, the averments of collusion are also made between the Municipal Corporation and the plaintiff which the Trial Court taking into account the 4 wp 8598.11 attending circumstances has also recorded. 5. The Court has taken into consideration the interest of the respondent No. 2 and has allowed the application. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous, unreasonable. In such circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court, when same is supported by reasons. In the light of above I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 6. Needless to state the observations made at the time of passing an order on an application U/O 1 Rule 10 of the respondent No. 2 and the present writ petition are only prima facie in nature and would not affect the decision of the suit. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11