1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6825 OF 2011 Shri Dagadu Rao Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Shamrao Jadhav & Others ...Respondents Mr.Shridhar A Patil for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 21st SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. In the morning learned Advocate Mr. Patil had advanced his submissions and thereafter application was made for withdrawal of the writ petition. Accordingly, order for withdrawal of the writ petition was passed. Before the said order could be signed by me, learned Advocate for the petitioner mentioned the matter in the afternoon session at 4.45 p.m. stating that the petition came to be withdrawn on account of some misunderstanding and hence the order withdrawing the petition be recalled. 2 2. Request made by learned Advocate is fair. Therefore, in the interest of justice, heard learned Advocate Mr.Patil on merits and that is how this order is being passed. 3. Petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Shirala, District Sangli against the respondent nos.1 to 6. By the said suit, the petitioner wanted the said court to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent nos.1 to 7 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. In the said suit, the respondent no.7 Hari Ganpat Jadhav and Sonabai Babu Jadhav (since deceased) filed application at Exhibit 32 praying that they be joined as party defendants. This application at Exhibit 32 was contested by the petitioner and thereafter the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala, Sangli by his order dated 21.7.2011 allowed the said application thereby granting the application for joining the parties and directed the petitioner to carry out the amendment. 4. This order dated 21.7.2011 is challenged in this petition. Learned 3 Advocate Mr.Patil, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner wanted reliefs against the original respondent nos.1 to 6 and that is how the suit came to be filed. According to the petitioner, repsondent no.7 and Sonabai had nothing to do with the land in question at the time when the application at Exhibit 32 was filed. He further submitted that even today also they have nothing to do with the land in question. He submitted that in the absence of nexus between the petitioner, land and the respondent no.7 and said Sonabai, application made by these two pesons was not tenable and the court should not have joined them. Learned Advocate Mr. Patil therefore submitted that the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge in granting the application are not correct. He, therefore, submitted that the petition be admitted and appropriate order be passed. 5. I have considered the entire record and the rival submission. It is true that the suit came to be filed only against the respondent nos.1 to 6. The petitioner, at the time of filing of the suit was not interested in seeking order against respondent no.7 and Sonabai as according to him there was no lis between himself and those two persons. It is quite natural that if the petitioner has no lis with the respondent no.7 4 and Sonabai, there was no occasion for him to join them as party. A perusal of the application at Exhibit 32 would clearly go to show that the respondent no.7 as well as Sonabai claimed that they have interest in the property and on account of that they wish that they should be joined as party defendant. In my view, on the basis of the averments made in the application at Exhibit 32, it appears that the respondent no.7 and Sonabai (at the time during her lifetime) had intended to put up some claim in respect of the said property and that is why they wanted to join the litigation initiated by the petitioner. 6. Further, having perused the record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala, District Sangli, erred in rejecting the said application. In my view, the very fact that the respondent no.7 and late Sonabai indicated their desire to oppose the suit itself, is sufficient alarm as regards his rights qua the land covered by the present suit. In such a situation, the presence of applicant below Exhibit 32 was necessary and that is how the learned trial Judge looked into the said aspect and granted the request. A reading of the order clearly goes to show that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala, thought it fit to decide the application for 5 the purpose of arriving at appropriate conclusion in the present suit which is filed by the present petitioner. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 21.7.2011. Petition is required to be dismissed. Hence following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)