(1) WP 7607.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7607 OF 2009 Sakharabai w/o Baliram Kamble and ors. PETITIONERS VERSUS Dinesh S/o Kashinath Kamble and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R.O. Awasarmal, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent no.6 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants in Suit (R.C.S. 177 of 2007). They are challenging the order dated 7.10.2009 on application of the respondent no.6-Sumanbai. The application was for her impleadment as a party. The application was not opposed by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file any say. It is only the petitioners (defendants) who contested the application on the ground that the respondent no.6-Sumanbai had no (2) WP 7607.2009 existing right because she had remarried and could not have claimed any right as heir of deceased- Baliram. 3. The plaintiff is dominus litus. When the plaintiff himself did not dispute the status of the respondent no.6-Sumanbai and did not contest the application for impleadment, the present petitioners cannot challenge the impleadment, unless there is a substantial prejudice caused to them in making out their defence. Whether the respondent no.6-Sumanbai had remarried or not is a question which they may raise and they also may carry out suitable amendment in their pleadings about such ground of the respondent no-6 Sumanbai, in order to explain her status. However, her addition as a party cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the Petition is dismissed. No costs. Final hearing of the suit is expedited. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp