W.P.No.9102 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2011 Ashok s/o Yadavrao Kamble .. Petitioner Versus Shri Mahila Udyog Papad, through its Director Sheelatai w/o Vasantrao Waghmare .. Respondent Mr N.P.Patil, Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November 2011 PER COURT 1. The present petitioner is the original defendant. The present respondent had filed a suit for simplicitor injunction, restraining the defendant therein from obstructing the possession of the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner filed an application for impleading the T.I.L.R., the District Collector and the Tahsildar as parties to the suit. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri N.P.Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts and circumstances of the case necessitates the addition of the said T.I.L.R., the District Collector and Tahsildar as parties to the suit. The illegal transactions took place behind the back of the said proposed W.P.No.9102 of 2011 2 parties. The proposed parties had inquired into the matter. The Tahsildar has recorded the fact that the transaction is illegal and unauthorized and the Court should also hold an inquiry of the illegal process regarding the illegal transactions of sale and for the said purpose, they are necessary parties. 3. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case under Order I Rule 10 (2 of the C.P.C.). Whether to add a particular party is a discretion of the Court. Only necessary and proper parties can be added as party – defendants. The suit is for simplicitor injunction. No further relief is claimed, as such the Court would be confined to decide on the factum of possession. If the petitioner wants to bring on record some transaction, the petitioner can examine these parties as its witnesses but, certainly they are not necessary parties to the suit. 4. In view of above, no error is committed by the Court below. The writ petition as such is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) (vvr/9102.11wp)