( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO.691 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.691 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.691 OF 2006 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO.878 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO.878 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO.878 OF 2003 Shri Balwant Namdeo Sutar Since deceased through his LRs 1. Hanumant Balwant Sutar & Ors. ..Applicants V/s. Shri Eknath Babu Sutar and Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr. G.Jadhavrao i/by M/s. Jadhavrao & Co. for applicants Mr. Nitin Deshpande for respondent No.1 Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.2 ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2009 DATED : 28th April, 2009 DATED : 28th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The original applicant filed suit for partition and while the suit was pending, land in question came to be acquired by the State of Maharashtra. Compensation amount was deposited and it has been withdrawn by respondent No.1. Applicants want that State of Maharashtra should be joined as a party respondent. No satisfactory explanation could be seen for joining State of Maharashtra as a party respondent. Question before the Court concerned is that the partition and rights of respective parties, if any. The State of Maharashtra has no role to play ( 2 ) while hearing such dispute. Hence, there is no need to have State of Maharashtra before this Court in resolving the dispute raised in the second appeal. Application is misconceived hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Civil Application is rejected with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)