W.P.No.9114 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9114 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., through the Superintendent Engineer, MSEDCL, Jalna, District Jalna ..Petitioner Versus M/s Neelam Steel Industries Pvt.Ltd., Jalna and ors. ..Respondents Mr S.V.Mundhe, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November 2011 PER COURT 1. The present petitioner/original plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery against the present respondents. The present respondents filed an application for impleading one M/s R.K.Re-rolling Mills as a defendant No. 4 on the premise that an agreement has been entered between the defendants with the said M/s R.K. Re-rolling Mills. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Mundhe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. The said third party is not the necessary nor a proper party. The agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the original defendants and the original defendants were the consumers of the petitioner. When there W.P.No.9114 of 2011 2 was no privity between the plaintiff and the third party, the third party cannot be added as a party – defendant. If the defendants have any personal cause of action, then that cannot be redressed in the present suit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to contest against a third party against the will of the plaintiff. 3. To add the particular party or not is the discretion of the Court. The defendants have come with the case that an agreement has been entered into between the defendants and the said third party. At this stage, the merits of the case cannot be decided. The Court will only form a prima facie opinion and when averments are made about the agreement, then no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if the third party is added. That would settle the complete dispute between the parties and so any further lis would be avoided. 4. In view of the above, when the trial Court has exercised its discretion, I am not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no orders as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) (vvr/9114.11wp)