1 WP 2663/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2663/2011 Avinash s/o Krishnaji Shahade, Age : 45 years, Occu. Business, Prop. Of M/s Avinash Engineering Plot No. F-37, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner. Versus 1 M/s Sanjeev Prevision Component Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. M-15, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad. 2 Mr. S.D. Tambolkar, Managing Director, M/s Sanjeev Prevision Component Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. M-115, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. ...Respondents. Mr. Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Kaware, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 18th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsels for both parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05/03/2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vaijapur in Special Civil Suit No. 70/2010 allowing the respondents / defendants application for impleading sales tax department as party to the suit. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s suit is for recovery 2 WP 2663/2011 of price of goods sold and delivered. The suit claim is of more than Rs.10,00,000/-. During the pendency of the suit, the sales tax department under the provisions of Maharashtra Sales Tax (VAT) Act, 2002 issued a notice to the respondents demanding certain amount because the respondents owed to the petitioner / plaintiff certain amount and in tern the petitioner/plaintiff owed certain amount to the department towards value added tax. The respondents sent a reply to the Sales Tax Department and informed them that their case is pending in Civil Court and they had already deposited admitted dues in the Court and they should withdraw the notice etc.. However, the Sales Tax officers persisted their demand, but instead of dealing with the department, the respondents moved the present application and sought directions of the Court that the Sales Tax department should be made party to the suit. The learned judge accepted their plea on the ground that the question as to “how much amount the petitioner/plaintiff owed to the Sales Tax Department” is also relevant. 4. I am afraid, the learned judge of the trial Court misunderstood this aspect of the case. The dispute between the parties is in respect of price of goods which remained to unpaid. As said above, the respondents had purchased certain goods from the petitioner and have admittedly not paid certain dues towards price of the goods. The question between the parties therefore could be whether the petitioner / plaintiff proves that they are entitled to recover more amount than admitted amount from the respondents. So what happened between the Sales Tax department and the respondents, is certainly beyond scope of this suit. It is not a relevant question for deciding the real issue between the parties. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to 3 WP 2663/2011 be set aside. ORDER Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/August18/wp2663.11/0k