wp11350.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No.11350/2010. Sunita w/o Anupam Asange. ... PETITIONER v/s Mamta w/o Anupam Asange. ... RESPONDENT. ... Mr. G.V. Wani, Adv. for petitioner. Mr.A.M. Gholap, Adv. for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 03.08.2011. PER COURT: This petition is directed against the order dated 4th October, 2010 below Exh.16 in RCA No.139 of 2008 passed by the District Judge-2, Jalgaon. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein is original appellant in the appeal before the District Court, Jalgaon. An application was filed by the petitioner under O. 1 R. 10 of C.P.C. for impleading the mother-in-law of the petitioner as a party respondent. However, the said application came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. wp11350.10 2 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that to determine the share of the L.Rs. of Anupam Asange, it is necessary that all the necessary parties are before the Court. The mother of deceased Anupam is entitled for share in the property. Therefore, the application was filed by the petitioner herein for impleading mother of Anupam as party respondent to set at rest the entire controversy in the proceedings and to determine proportionate share of the parties. The learned Counsel further submitted that appeal is continuation of the proceedings before the lower Court. Therefore, there is no bar for entertaining the application for impleading party to the appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the cost of repetition submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it was necessary that the appellate Court should have allowed the application of the petitioner for adding mother of Anupam as party respondent. However, the said application has been erroneously rejected. Therefore, he prays that this Court may interfere in the said order and allow this petition. 4 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the wp11350.10 3 respondent submits that in the proceedings bearing Misc. Application No.143/2006 which was filed by the petitioner herein before the Court below, the mother of Anupam was not made party respondent or there was no any application filed for making her party. The attempt of the petitioner to make her party in the appeal cannot be countenanced. The reasons which are given by the District Judge while rejecting the application are proper. He, therefore, prays that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. 5 I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The District Judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner has observed that the parties are litigating since 2006. The appellant / applicant was aware that the deceased was survived by his mother. However, during pendency of the proceeding before the trial Court for about two years the appellant / present petitioner did not take any steps for her impleadment. Moreover, in her own application also she did not implead the mother as party respondent. It is further observed that the mother also did not appear before the Court though public notice was issued nor did she prefer any wp11350.10 4 independent application for succession. It is further observed that there is no any reason given in the application to show as to why such a request was not made before the trial Court. Therefore, ultimately, the application filed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected. 6 In my opinion, the reasons assigned by the District Judge needs no interference as concluded by the District Judge that there are no reasons given in the application to show as to why such request was not made before the trial Court. The said position cannot be improved now. According to the Counsel for the for the petitioner, the mother of deceased Anupam is entitled for her share and, therefore, she is necessary party is required to be examined carefully. If mother wishes to have share in the property, she can file an application. However, the attempt of the petitioner to implead the mother as party respondent belatedly though it was possible for the petitioner in the year, 2006 itself to add mother of deceased in her proceedings bearing No.143/2006, she did not take any steps to that effect. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the District Judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner wp11350.10 5 are proper, and a possible view on the strength of material placed on record has been taken. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. Writ Petition stands rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*