1 910wp6754-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6754 OF 2011 Mr. Darshan Kaur Ishar Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Aslina Technical Institute & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b. Mr. J. S. Saluja for the petitioners. Ms. Sireen Shaikh i/b. M/s. S. K. Srivastav & Co. for respondent No.1. Ms. Gayatri Sharma for respondent Nos.2 to 8. And Mr. Pramod Keni i/b. Thakordas & Madgavkar for Respondent Nos.2 to 8. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The first respondent made an application before the trial Court for impleding himself as a party plaintiff No.8 along with the second to eight respondents in the proceeding for determination of mesne profit. The said application was made on the ground that the first respondent has purchased the suit premises from the original plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by the present petitioners on various grounds including a ground that identical application made earlier has 2 910wp6754-11 been dismissed. By the impugned order, the said application made by the first respondent has been allowed. 2. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court shows that there is no finding recorded therein that the first respondent has become the owner of the suit premises or that the entire right, title and interest of the original plaintiffs have been transferred to the first respondent. Without recording such a finding, the application could not have been allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent states that necessary documents were produced before the trial Court, but, there is no specific finding recorded by the trial Court to that effect. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that an order of remand be passed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the principles of the res-judicata are applicable as the earlier application made by the first respondent for the same relief has been rejected. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that though there is a reference to the documents produced by the first respondent, there is no specific finding recorded regarding the effect of the said documents on the title of the original plaintiff. Therefore, the request made by the first respondent 3 910wp6754-11 deserves to be accepted. As far as the contention based on the principles of res-judicata is concerned, the said contention always remains open when the trial Court reconsiders the application. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned order dated 5th March, 2011 is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit-25 is restored to the file of the trial Court. ii. The trial Court shall decide the said application afresh in accordance with law. iii. All objections of the petitioners to the said application are expressly kept open. iv. Petition is partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)