IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4098 of 2011 Smt. Bholi @ Baoli w/o Jagannath Yadav ..Vs.. Ramkailash Chandrikaprasad Yadav & Others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Anjan De., Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 25 th August, 2011. Heard. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 3.3.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P. C. for joinder as party defendant. The petitioner claims to be the sister of the plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration, possession, perpetual injunction and mesne profit against his son, the respondent no.2. It was the case of the plaintiff that his father Chandrikaprasad has executed a will in his favour. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the only son of late Chandrikaprasad. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application for permission to intervene in the suit. It was the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the suit property and she being the daughter of late Chandrikaprasad, was entitled to claim share in the suit property. The petitioner stated in the application that the father of the plaintiff and the petitioner had not executed any will in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court rightly held that the plaintiff had not sought any prayer or relief against the petitioner. The trial court observed, and rightly so, that in case the petitioner had any right in the suit property, the said right could not have been claimed in the present suit. To the present suit, the trial court found that the petitioner was not a necessary party and that it could not be said that the suit could not be adjudicated properly in the absence of the petitioner. In case the petitioner had any right in the suit property, it was for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings instead of filing an application for intervention in the present suit. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan