1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2323 OF 2009 Satyadeo Bahadur Dhobi .. Petitioner Versus Brijlal Bahadur Dhobi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Omprakash Pandey for the petitioner. Mr.Devasis Mitra for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7 th August 2009. P.C.: . The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The 1 st respondent who is the brother of the petitioner is the original defendant. A chamber summons was taken out by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents for impleading themselves as party defendants to the suit filed by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the said chamber summons has been made absolute. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit simplicitor for injunction against the 1 st respondent. The relief is sought in respect of a room and a shop premises. By the chamber summons, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents contended that they have been placed in possession of the suit premises on the basis of a Deed of 2 Assignment dated 06 th October 2007 executed in their favour by the 1 st respondent (original defendant). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has taken out a notice of motion alleging that a breach of interim order passed in the suit has been committed and the said notice of motion is pending. He pointed out that the father of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and therefore there cannot be any lawful assignment made by the 1 st respondent as pleaded by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. He submitted that during the pendency of contempt notice of motion, the impugned order could not have been passed directing that the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents shall be impleaded as the party defendants. 4. I have given consideration to the submissions. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are claiming to be in possession of the suit premises through the 1 st respondent-defendant on the basis of a Deed of Assignment allegedly executed during the pendency of the suit. The suit is simplicitor for injunction. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in directing that the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents be impleaded as parties. Merely because the said respondents are impleaded as parties, that does not mean that the 3 trial Court has accepted legality and validity of the alleged Deed on which the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are relying upon. The petitioner can always contend that the alleged document on which 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are claiming right is illegal and that on the basis of such document the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents cannot claim to be in possession. The rights of the petitioner are not prejudiced in any manner by the impugned order. The contempt Notice of Motion shall be decided on its own merits. 5. No case is made out for interference in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. It will be always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies against the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. (A.S.OKA,J)