kbp 1 2138-09.sxw + 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2138 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 Shivshankar Shobhnath Mishra ..Applicant Vs. Brijlal Rambriksh Yadav and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.K.K.Pandey, for applicant. Mr.Vijay Pandey i/b.Mr.Pawankumar Mishra, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] A case for restoration is made out. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “a”. ( A.S.OKA, J. ) kbp 2 2138-09.sxw + 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 Shivshankar Shobhnath Mishra ..Petitioner Vs. Brijlal Rambriksh Yadav and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.K.K.Pandey, for petitioner. Mr.Vijay Pandey i/b.Mr.Pawankumar Mishra, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner is the original plaintiff in a suit simpliciter for injunction. The petitioner claims to have purchased the suit premises from one Rajendraprasad Daulatprasad Mishra. The petitioner claims to have purchased 1/4 th share in the suit premises of said Rajendraprasad. The suit for injunction proceeds on the footing that the petitioner is in possession and that the respondents are trying to obstruct the possession. In the suit, an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to implead his alleged predecessor in title as party defendant. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3] The learned counsel for the petition submitted that considering the stand taken by the respondents, it was necessary for the petitioner to implead his predecessors-in-title as a party defendants in as much as the said kbp 3 2138-09.sxw + 1 Rajendraprasad has purchased the suit premises along with the respondents from the original owner. He submitted that the original owner was necessary and proper party to the suit. 3] I have considered the submissions. The petitioner wants to implead not only his predecessor in title but also the person from whom his predecessor in title acquired the suit premises. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of 1/4 th share of the said Rajendraprasad. The suit is not for partition. The suit is simplicitor for injunction on the basis of the alleged possession of the petitioner. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the said suit. Hence, the trial court was justified in rejecting the prayer for impleading the predecessors of the petitioner as party defendants. There is no merit in the petition. 4] Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )