1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3766 OF 2009 Damodar alias Shivaji s/o Dattopant Kulkarni ... PETITIONER VERSUS Ahmad Mohiyoddin s/o Mohammad Khairoddin Inamdar & others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 4 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. By application (Exh. 55) in Regular Civil Suit No.200/2007, application to implead the applicant as party to the suit was moved and learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai, by order dated 15.1.2009, rejected the same and hence the Writ Petition. 2. It is the matter on record, the another suit for specific performance of contract, being Special Civil Suit No. 33/2008 was against the defendant Nos.4 and 5. When the applicant has already filed a separate suit to decide his right regarding the suit property, the learned Judge has found there was no reason to implead the applicant as defendant in Regular 2 Civil Suit No.200/2007. In the suit, there was no declaration of ownership claimed by the plaintiff. It was a simplicitor suit for perpetual injunction. Considering these aspects, the scope available in terms of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which basically contemplate a person has to primarily establish having a right in the subject matter, being not surfaced, the order does not call for interference. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/wp3766.09