1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 738 OF 2009 Madhavi Sadanand Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. Jagdishsingh Ghisusingh Purohit & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 739 OF 2009 Madhavi Sadanand Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. Ritadevi Hariprasad Maurya & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 740 OF 2009 Madhavi Sadanand Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. Suresh Kumar Jain & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 741 OF 2009 Madhavi Sadanand Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. Devanand Ramapati Maurya & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 742 OF 2009 Madhavi Sadanand Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. Kalpanadevi Govindsingh Parmar & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Khandeparkar i/b. M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Anil C.Singh a/w. Ashwin R. Singh i/b. R.O. Pathak for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th MARCH 2010. P.C. :- After this matter was argued for some time, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Original Intervener states that the Original Intervener would make an appropriate application praying for joinder of the intervener as a party Defendant to L.C. Suit No. 676 of 2009. 2. Mr. Khandeparkar does not press the Petition and particularly, his challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing Misc. Application No. 83 of 2009. 3. In the light of the statement made and even otherwise, finding that the order dated 13th August 2009 does not require any interference, the Revision Application is disposed of but reserving liberty to the Intervener to seek joinder as party Defendant to the subject Suit. If such an application is made, it shall be considered in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier order on the Misc. Application and the disposal of the Revision Application. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)