FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 1 Mr. Hemantkumar Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the respondents. --- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. An interlocutory order passed by the trial court, directing impleadment of the respondent No.2/third party applicant as party to the suit, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as the respondent No.2 has no right, title and interest in the property in question, it can not be said that the respondent No.2 is either a necessary or property party to the suit. A suit is filed by the present petitioners against the respondent No.1/defendant bearing R.C.S. No.37/2008 claiming a decree in respect of recovery of tenanted premises as well for recovery or rent. It is further contended that the respondent NO.2 /third party applicant cannot be said to be a necessary party to the suit. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 2 3. I have perused the order passed by the trial court below Exhibit 14. It does transpire on perusal of the order that the suit presented by the third party applicant, claiming declaration in respect of ½ portion of the suit property has been decreed exparte in his favour. Although there is a challenge raised to the said decree, the litigation has not yet concluded. As on today, the decree passed in favour of the third party applicant still holds the field and in this view of the matter, it can not be contended that the third party applicant has no entitlement in respect of the suit property or that he is totally a stranger to the litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was justified in concluding that the third party applicant is a proper party to the suit. In the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the trial court, in permitting impleadment of the third party applicant as a party to the suit, cannot be interfered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are devoid of any substance. Hence, the same are dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J.] grt/ FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 3