(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6272 OF 2009 Chandrakant s/o. Laxmikant Mulavekar. .. Petitioner (Original applicant) versus 1. Pratapsingh s/o. Hansramsingh Chauhan, died by his L.Rs. : 1A. Chandramohansingh s/o. Pratapsingh Chauhan, 1B. Preetmohansingh s/o. Pratapsingh Chauhan. 1C. Sow. Tuljadevi w/o. Pradipsingh Pardeshi. 1D. Sow. Girijadevi s/o. Dilipsingh Shendage. 1E. Sow. Vijaydevi w/o. Tuljaramsingh. .. Respondents (Nos.1A to 1G - 1F. Sow. Rajkumari w/o. Dharmarajsingh Original defendants Gahilod. & No.2 - Original 1G. Sow. Sharayudevi s/o. Nepalsingh plaintiff ) Thakur. 2. Vasantrao s/o. Pralhadrao Mulavekar. (2) .......................... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent nos. 1A to 1G are formal parties. Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent no.2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th July 2009, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Parbhani, below Exhibit 25 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138/2004, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for impleading him as party in the appeal. 2. The respondent no.2 has filed a suit against respondent no.1 for recovery of rent. The said suit is decreed. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 has preferred an appeal against the respondent no.2. In the said appeal, an application came to be filed on behalf of the present petitioner, claiming that he is co-owner of the premises which are tenanted to respondent no.1. 3. The application has been rejected on the ground that if the (3) petitioner has any claim against his uncle, he can very well take steps as permissible in law. The another ground, which weighed with the appellate court in rejecting the application, is that the application was filed at a belated stage. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the appellate court, has been exercised in perverse manner, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6272