1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2009 Shaikh Sameer s/o Chandsaheb, Age: 33 years, Occ: Business (S.T.D.) R/o. Ambejogai Road, Near Amba Hanuman Mandir, Latur, District Latur. .. Petitioner Versus Prakash s/o Keshavrao Kawatawar, (Died) leaving behind him L.Rs. 1. Baby w/o Prakash Kawtakawar, Age: 61 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Lokhand Galli, Latur & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for petitioner. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition is filed by the original defendant under Articles 226 and 227 of the 2 Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13-01-2009 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Latur below Exhibit-55 in R.C.S. No. 646/2004. 3. The petitioner - original defendant filed application below Exhibit-55 dated 12-12-2008 for framing additional issue for maintainability of suit, as under. "Whether the present suit is maintainable for want of permission of Hon'ble Court, for suing representative capacity.?" 4. In the present case, the respondents - original plaintiffs filed R.C.S. No. 646/2004 for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the petitioner restraining them from damaging or destroying the existing position of the suit space from and out of Survey No. 249 at Ambejogai Road, Latur. 3 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents - original plaintiffs in their suit stated that the petitioner - original defendant without obtaining any permission from the Municipal Council, Latur and without obtaining any permission from the other owners of the Plots and Shop belonging from the S. No.249 and without having any right and title over the suit space / service road going to construct the Shop in front of his Shop on the suit space. It is going to affect public at large. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents - original plaintiffs filed suit in representative capacity. 6. From the averments in plaint of R.C.S. No. 646/2004, it is crystal clear that the respondents - original plaintiffs filed suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the petitioner from carrying out construction and / or destroying the existing space in front of his 4 Shop. Therefore, there is no question of coming to the conclusion that the respondents - original plaintiffs had filed suit in representative capacity. 7. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed summarily. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp2763.09