1 WP 7177.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7177 OF 2011 Sow. Ashabai W/o Parmeshwar Panad Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. : Household, R/o : Nyaya Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Through its Special Commissioner [ CIDCO ], Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 2. Sow. Indubai W/o Bhaskarrao Awasarmal Age : 57 Yrs., Occ. : Household, R/o : Eknath Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. Through G.P.A. Holder Ravindra S/o Bhaskarrao Awasarmal Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. : Education, R/o : Eknath Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.N.Sonpethkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S.Choudhari, Advocateholding for Mr. Raut, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27/09/2011 2 WP 7177.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. At the out set, Mr. Sonpethkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 is deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, present respondent no. 2 filed an application for impleading as party. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Sonpethkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner could not file Say to the said application for the reasons detailed in the petition. According to the learned counsel, an opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner to contest the said application. 5. Mr. M.S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 WP 7177.2011 - [ J ] 2 holding for Mr. Raut, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is guilty of negligence and laches. The present respondent no. 2 is an interested person and is a necessary party for the effective adjudication of the lis. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned order. 7. The impugned order is passed as no Say has been filed by the plaintiff. Taking into account the nature of the controversy, it would be in fitness of things to allow the petitioner to file his Say and contest the said application on merits. At the same time, the petitioner also deserves to be mulct with the costs. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside on condition that the petitioner pays costs of Rs. 1,000/- [ Rupees One Thousand only ] to the present respondent no. 2 within the period of two ( 2 ) weeks from today i.e. 11/10/2011. The petitioner shall file Say to the said application filed by the present respondent no. 2 within the period of two ( 2 ) weeks from today and the trial Court shall thereafter decide the said application filed by the present respondent no. 2 under Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure on its own merits. 4 WP 7177.2011 - [ J ] 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute with the aforesaid observations and directions. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7177.2011 - [ J ]