wp3438.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3438/2011 Vinod Shrivishnu Toshniwal and another -vs- Digambar Krishnarao Deshmukh and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S/Shri S.O.Tapadia and A.H.Lohiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 21/07/2011. The above Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 20/01/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, by which order the application at Exhibit-97 filed by the petitioners for being impleaded in Regular Civil Suit No.366/2002 came to be rejected. The petitioners claimed to be donors, and nominees of the Trust in question. The said Regular Civil Suit No.366/2002 has been filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking the substantive relief of restraining the defendants from appointing any employee in the college or the Trust in any manner, particularly on the basis of interviews, which was scheduled on 29/06/2002. He has further claimed that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 be restrained from giving any approval to the candidate, who may be selected in the interview dated 29/06/2002. In the array of the defendants in the said suit are wp3438.11.odt 2/2 the President, the Secretary of the Trust in question. The petitioners in their capacity as donors and nominees of donor are not directly concerned with the subject matter of the said suit. However, on the ground that they want to highlight the manner in which the affairs of the Trust are conducted, they seek to join as party defendants in the said suit. The trial Court considering the relief sought in the said suit has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners are not necessary to be joined as party defendants. In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court are unexceptional and do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE