*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9465/2009 Ravindra Khanderao Londhe. ..Petitioner ­VERSUS­ Nagesh Baburao Rampure @ Mevekari and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 12th November, 2009. PC:­ 1 The present Petitioner is the original Defendant No.1(E) having been brought on record as one of the legal heir consequent upon the death of his father. After the Petitioner was brought on record as legal heir, the Petitioner participated in the proceedings. I am informed that the mother of Petitioner did file the separate Written Statement. At belated stage, after the evidence of the Plaintiffs came to be recorded, at that time, the Petitioner moved an application titled as an application under Order­1 Rule­10 and Order­6 Rule­17 r/w 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the said application, the Petitioner sought permission of the Trial Court to contest the suit not only as a legal heir of the deceased Defendant No.1 but also claimed an independent right to set out other defences by contending that he has purchased the share from the Defendant *2* No.2 and Defendant No.1­C to 1­F out of the entire property, the second Defendant acting for self and for the Defendants Nos.1­C to 1­F. The property is allegedly purchased on 02.07.1999. Though the Petitioner claims to have purchased the property way back in the year 1999, he chose to file the application to contest the suit on the basis of the independent rights purportedly accrued from the sale deed dated 02.07.1999, as late in August, 2009. The Trial Court has rejected the application by holding that if the present Petitioner is permitted to contest the suit based on his independent rights then the very nature of the suit would be changed. Obviously there would also be likelihood of prejudice being caused to the Plaintiffs as their evidence is already closed. 2 At this stage when the evidence of Plaintiffs is already closed, I do not deem it appropriate to entertain the present Writ Petition. 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1653 (Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and others), which lays down that the party desirous of setting up an independent right besides the rights as legal representative he needs to seek his impleadment in that capacity in the suit. In substance the learned counsel taking recourse to the said judgment is canvassing that the application moved was in substance under Order­1 Rule­10 of CPC. 4 Be that as it may, without going into merits of the case I decline to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that it shall be open for the Petitioner to question the correctness of the impugned order dated 06.10.2009 in the event if *3* the decree is passed against the Petitioner and in the event if the Petitioner is constrained to file the appeal. 4 Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. (A.P. Deshpande, J)