1 WP 6558/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6558 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11 June 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dapoli, directing him to join co­parceners as parties to the suit. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner through legal aid counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Aid Services 2 WP 6558/10 Committee. Copy of the plaint is not annexed to the petition. However, by perusing a copy of the plaint in his brief learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is not for partition but has been filed by the petitioner for purchase of the suit property which has been sold by the karta of the joint family to a third party. 4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the suit appears to be frivolous. The petitioner claims that he has no money even to pursue his litigation (in this Court) and, therefore, sought assistance of legal aid through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. It is not clear how the petitioner is claiming that he would purchase the property if he does not even have money to pay for the litigation. But I am not dismissing the petition on that ground but on merits. 5. The suit property was sold by the 3 WP 6558/10 respondent no.1 purporting to act as the karta. Instead of suing for partition and setting aside of alienation, the petitioner has filed the suit only for a mandatory injunction and direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to sell the property to him and to cancel the sale deed made by the respondent no.1 in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3. In the suit, the petitioner did not join all the co­parceners as parties to the suit. The defendants therefore applied to the Court for a direction to the petitioner­plaintiff to join all co­ parceners as parties to the suit. That application was allowed. If the plaintiff claims that being a co­parcener he has a preferential right to purchase the suit property, the right, if there be any, must vest in all the co­parceners and as such, all the co­parceners are necessary parties. The trial court has committed no error in directing the petitioner to join all the co­ parceners as parties to the suit. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)