ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 410 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 410 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 410 OF 2008 Mr.Bharat Tukaram Navale ...Petitioner Vs. Mr.Mangesh Vasantrao Parulekar & Ors....Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr.Vinay Shete i/by Ms.Poorvi Kamani for Respondent No.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 17th October, 2008. : 17th October, 2008. : 17th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner-Plaintiff has challenged the order of deletion of the name of Original Defendant No.4 in the defamation Suit. The paragraph 10 of the Plaint as well as the prayers in the suit of the defamation are sufficient to decide the present petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The averments are very clear that the Plaintiffs are seeking basic relief against Defendant No.1 and even prayer clauses it is referred claimed for damages from Defendant No.1 only. If this is the position, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order as rightly passed by the learned Judge by ( 2 ) considering the scope and purpose of such litigation as well as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In totality, there is no case is made out to interfere with the said order. There is no perversity. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)