1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4550 OF 2009 (Shri Ramesh Sitaramji Jamgade & Ors. vs. Vatsalabai Raghobaji Jamgade through LRs Narendra Laxman Patil & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2009. Heard Shri Doifode, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dhareshwar, learned counsel for the respondent – Narendra Patil and Shri Bangadkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Doifode, learned counsel states that Respondent No.2 is original plaintiff and said respondent has not objected to joinder of present petitioners as party defendants to his suit. Respondent No.2 is claiming relief of declaration against the deceased Vatsalabai and the petitioners are her legal heirs. Shri Bangadkar, learned counsel states that because of claim made by the petitioners, he has no objection if the petitioners are added as party defendants. Shri Dhareshwar, learned counsel by placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Col. (Retd.) S.S. Multani vs. Smt. Veneeta Jain & Ors., reported at AIR 2008 (NOC) 1704 (H.P.), contends that the petitioners have to establish their right independently and not in 2 this matter. He places before this Court history of earlier litigation between the deceased Vatsalabai and Respondent No.2 and states that the petitioners are in fact colluding with Respondent No.2 to see that entitlement of Vatsalabai maintained right up to the Supreme Court does not reach her or her legal heirs within reasonable time. He states that even today the execution for recovery of encroached portion is pending and the present application was filed only with a view to create a diversion and to delay the disposal of main proceedings. He points out that Regular Civil Suit is pending since 2004. Respondent No.2 – plaintiff is dominus litus and as pointed out by Shri Bangadkar, learned counsel, in order to resolve the situation once for all, the said respondent has no objection to join the petitioners as parties. The petitioners, prima facie, are also related to Vatsalabai. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by expediting the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1345 of 2004. If present petitioners are kept out of that litigation, they may be required to move some other independent proceedings which would further delay the final adjudication of the controversy. Hence, keeping in mind all these facts, the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 passed by 33rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, below Exh. 45 is set aside. The application made by the petitioners at Exh. 45 is allowed. The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 1345 of 2004 are expedited. The Court below is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31st July 2010. The added defendants (present petitioners) shall file their written statement by 15th December 2009 and defendant No.1 in the suit is at liberty to amend his written statement thereafter, if it is found necessary. The Court below shall proceed further with the trial in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.