IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9352 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 9352 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 9352 OF 2007 Dr. Shri Arun Ganpat Kaisare ... Petitioner. Vs. Shri Manohar Bhaskar Joshi & ors... Respondents. Mr. S.V.Palsuledesai for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the order dated 4th September, 2007 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Kalyan is under challenge. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner/ original plaintiff to delete the name of the defendant No. 2 from record and for removal of the documents exhibited on record, has been rejected. 3. It is not disputed that the suit is already part-heard. The defendant No.2 has been brought on record as far back as in 1997 in the suit, pursuant to the application made by the defendant No. 2. That application was contested by the petitioner, whereafter the order came to be passed allowing the application of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 was added as party defendant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provisions in regard to the removal of documents already exhibited by the Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in case of BIBI BEGUM MARD SHAFIQ AHMED KHATIMITI AND ORS. VS. MOHMED KHALID GULAM DASTGIR JALAL AND ORS. reported in 2007 Vol.III Mah. Law Journal, 302, to show that the court cannot adjudicate the question of title to the property in matters arising out of the Rent Act, particularly when the defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein is not the heir of the original owner of the suit property. In my view this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Having considered the material on record, including the impugned order, in my view, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be faulted and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. No case for interference is made out to exercise the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]