1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4324 OF 2009 Mehboobi Hyder Ali Shaikh & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Wahida Hyderali Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.G.R.Mishra i/b Mr.D.R.Tiwari for the petitioners Mr.Manoj Kumar Upadhye for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The 1 st respondent is the original plaintiff. The 1 st respondent was served with the notice by the 2 nd respondent-Municipal Corporation alleging that the 1 st respondent has illegally affixed a rolling shutter to the the door of a residential premises. An application was made by the petitioners under Rule 10 (2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for impleading themselves as party defendants. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the landlords and the suit for eviction filed by the petitioners against the 1 st respondent in respect of the same premises is pending in the Court of Small Causes. He submitted that mere fact that the application for temporary injunction in the said suit was rejected is no ground for the City Civil Court to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not landlords. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ought to have been impleaded as party defendants. 2 3 It is true that the issue whether the petitioners are the landlords or not could not have been decided by the City Civil Court. The allegation made by the 2 nd respondent is that in place of door of the residential premises, the 1 st respondent has affixed the rolling shutter. Even assuming that the petitioners are the landlords, no direct interest in respect of the subject matter of the suit viz action of fixing a rolling shutter is shown by the petitioners. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The fact remains that taking the case of the petitioners as it is, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order on the title of the petitioners are only tentative observations and the Court of Small Causes will not be influenced by the said observations while deciding the suit filed by the petitioners. 4 Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE