(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3118 OF 2011 1. Ramesh s/o. Madhavrao Dongargave, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service. 2. Snehal d/o. Ramesh Dongargave, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Education. 3. Kiran s/o. Ramesh Dongargave, Age : 18 years, Occupation : Education. 4. Prakash s/o. Ramesh Dongargave, Age : 17 years, Occupation : Education, U/g. through his father, Ramesh s/o. Madhavrao Dongargave, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service. All R/o. Makani, Post : Chapoli, .. Petitioners Taluka : Ahmedpur, (Original third District : Latur. parties) versus 1. Seemabai w/o. Shivaji Patil, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. : Kumtha (Bk.), Taluka : Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. (2) 2. Malatibai w/o. Madhavrao Patil .. Respondent (Kumthekar), (No.1 - Original Age : 67 years, plaintiff & Occupation : Agriculture, No.2 - Original R/o. : Kumtha (Bk.), defendant) Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur. ....................... Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21ST APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.V. Warad, for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15-4-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedpur, below Exhibit 84 in Regular Civil Suit No. 235/2003, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking to implead them as third party in the suit. 3. It is apparent that in 2003 suit filed by widow (3) daughter-in-law for partition and separate possession, at the stage of final arguments, legal heirs of deceased daughter in the family have waken up and have moved application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The trial court has after considering all relevant facts, found application moved only with a view to delay the adjudication. 4. Though in the impugned order, trial court has made some observations about absence of material on record to show that deceased Manisha was daughter of the party defendants in the suit, perusal of affidavit of examination in chief filed by Maltibai (respondent no.4 before this court) reveals that she has deposed about daughter Manisha, death of Manisha and has also given names of her issues. Respondent no.1 / plaintiff has categorically opposed addition of present petitioners as party defendants. 5. Attention of this court is invited to the judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 330, in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another. Hon. Apex Court has observed that the power of court to add a party to a proceeding, cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question to be decided is whether right of a person may be affected if he is not (4) added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right. 6. The trial court can definitely look into evidence and pass appropriate orders and present petitioners are not party before trial court, it is apparent that their interest (if any) are not being affected at all. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity on the part of the trial court. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3118