1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6429 OF 2008 Suryakant Kanhyalal Tilakpure ...Petitioner Versus Sushilabai mother Rumbai Birpankar & Ors ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.P. Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.P. Chavan, advocate for respondents 1-1 and 1-2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 9TH OCTOBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Jalgaon on an application below Exh.87 and 94 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 287 of 1996. 2 By the impugned order, the court below rejected the applications of the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and application for adding necessary parties in the suit under Order 1 Rule 3 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds in the petition and submitted that in the interest of justice application for amendment as well as application for adding parties filed by 2 the petitioner should have been allowed by the court below. According to the learned counsel, one Mr. Kolhe and another Mr. Ladda are the subsequent purchasers and they are necessary parties to the suit. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, filed applications with the same prayers and those applications came to be rejected. In spite of the said fact, again the petitioner had filed second application with the same prayer without disclosing the fact that in earlier round of litigation his applications with the same prayers were rejected and said order is confirmed by this Court in writ petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, during the course of arguments has tendered certified copy of the order dated 13.4.2004 in writ petition No. 3687 of 2003 and a copy of order dated 13.3.2008 passed in writ petition No. 3804 of 2007 and other connected writ petitions, the same are taken on record and marked as “X” and “Y” respectively for the purpose of identification. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the order passed in writ petition No. 3804 and other three connected writ petitions and submitted that already subject matter involved in this writ petition is covered by the orders passed in above writ petitions as well as the order dated 13.4.2004 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 3687 of 2003. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, is that the issue involved in this petition has already been 3 adjudicated before the court below as well as before this Court, and therefore, with the same prayers and contentions, this writ petition cannot be entertained. 5 After hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the considered view that once the application for adding parties and for amending the plaint is rejected by the trail court and same is confirmed in writ petition, it is impermissible to file another application with the same contentions and prayers before the trial court and after rejecting the said applications by the trial court, writ petition before this Court. On query by this Court to the counsel appearing for the petitioner about earlier round of litigation and orders passed against the petitioner on similar prayers in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to answer, and therefore, I find considerable substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed and thus, the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/