jpc 1 wp8446-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8446 OF 2011 Sheeladevi Mehendraprasad Sharma ... Petitioner Versus Atmaram Laxmanrao Shinde ... Respondents and others Mr. M. R. Katikar for the petitioner Mr. Sagar Kasar for the respondent No.1 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the orders, both dated 7th July, 2011 passed by the learned Extra Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manmad. The said orders are passed on the applications Exh. 94 and Exh.95, filed by the original plaintiffs, i.e. the respondents herein. 2. The suit in question i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit plot from the defendants, i.e. the petitioners herein. It appears that when the said suit was at the stage of final argument, the defendants moved an application for framing of additional issue as regards mis-joinder of parties, to the extent that the heir of the defendant No.1 was not jpc 2 wp8446-11.sxw brought on record. The said application Exh. 93 filed by the defendants came to be allowed and additional issue as regards mis-joinder of the parties came to be framed. 3. Needless to state that the said additional issue would entail the pleadings to that effect as well as evidence. After the said Exh.93 came to be allowed, the plaintiffs moved applications Exhs. 94 and 95. Application Exh.94 was for joinder of heir of the defendant No.1 as defendant to the said suit and Exh. 95 was for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the pleadings to back the said amendment, by way of paragraph 3-A. The said amendment applications Exh.94 and 95 came to be allowed by the trial Court principally on the ground that since the additional issue has been framed at the behest of the defendants, the plaintiffs would have to be given a chance to incorporate pleadings and to lead evidence in that behalf. The trial Court was, therefore, of the view that the addition of the parties and incorporation of the amendment by way of paragraph 3-A in the plaint was necessitated. A reading of the said orders discloses that the trial Court, by allowing the said applications Exh.94 and 95 was in fact, trying to give equal opportunity to both the parties in respect of the said additional issue. In my view, therefore, no exception could be taken to jpc 3 wp8446-11.sxw to the impugned orders dated 7th July, 2011. Moreover, the said orders, being interlocutory, no case for interdiction at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)