1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7288 & 7289 OF 2008 Along with Civil Application Nos.1833 & 1834 of 2009 Mr Zuzar Mohsinbhai and ors .. Petitioners Vs Karjat Municipal Council and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Gauri Godse, for the petitioners. Mr Manoj Kadam, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 24/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The civil applications seeking amendment of the cause title are allowed and disposed of as such. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The writ petitions are heard for admission with the consent of the parties. T 2 2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are common and they have challenged three orders,namely, the order dated 30.8.2008 passed on the application at Exhibit-13, the order dated 22.5.2008 passed on the application at Exhibits- 19 and 20 and the order dated 6.10.2008 passed on the application at Exhibits 29 and 42. All these applications were filed in Civil Misc Appeal No.47 of 2008 filed by the respondent-council. 3. Respondent no.1 – Municipal Council, the original defendant, filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.47 of 2008 in the Court of District Judge, Raigad, against an order passed below Exhibit-5 dated 23.4.2008 by the Civil Judge, Jr Dn., Karjat in Regular Civil Suit no.51 of 2008. Initially, the suit was filed by three plaintiffs, namely, respondent nos 28,29 and 30 in these petitions. The suit was filed in representative capacity, in which, after following the due procedure as contemplated by Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, other 31 plaintiffs were added in the suit. Respondent no.1-council, however, while filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.47 of 2008, filed it only against the original three plaintiffs. In view thereof, the original plaintiff nos 1 to 3 filed an application at Exhibit-13 seeking dismissal of the Misc.Civil Appeal for non -joinder of necessary parties. That application was disposed of with the directions to respondent 3 no.1- Council to add the remaining plaintiffs as respondents and issue notice to them. Accordingly, the respondent-council carried out the amendment. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed another application at Exhibit-19 on 1.9.2008, stating that respondent no.1 - council should not be allowed to carry out amendment without hearing plaintiff nos 1 to 3. In view of the application filed by the plaintiffs at Exhibit-19, respondent no.1- council filed an application at Exhibit-20 on 22.9.2008, stating therein that the amendment had already been carried out by them and, therefore, it should be accepted. Both these applications, Exhibits 19 and 20, were disposed of vide order dated 22.5.2008 recording that the amendment had already been carried out and notices were also issued to the added respondent nos. 4 to 34. After the notices were served on all the added plaintiffs-respondents, they filed two applications at Exhibits 29 and 42 seeking dismissal of the Misc Civil Appeal being time barred and alternatively they sought direction to the Municipal Council to file separate application for condonation of seven days delay in filing the appeal against them. Those two applications were also disposed of by order dated 6.10.2008 keeping the issue of limitation open. I have seen all the applications and the orders passed thereon and, in my opinion, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the impugned 4 orders. The Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the applications filed by the council and, in my opinion, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The court below has done substantial justice by allowing the respondent-council to add respondent nos 4 to 32 in the Misc.Civil Appeal. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. The appellate court shall endeavour to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No.47 of 2008 expeditiously. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)