1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1563 OF 2010. (Vijayraj Dashrath Segekar and others -: versus :- Vijay Gopalrao Tayde and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 02, 2010. Heard Shri M.P. Kariya, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 16 and Shri C.J. Dhumre, learned counsel for respondent no.17. Petitioners contend that application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., filed by petitioners has been rejected erroneously by the trial court. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, respondent nos. 1 to 16 are influential persons and because of their political influence, they have secured water connection by jumping over the queue. Shri Bhuibar, learned counsel for respondents disputes this. Shri Dhumre, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.17, states that the contention of petitioners before this Court is factually incorrect. 2 On last occasion I have heard the parties for some time and I find that the petitioners are also claiming water connections to their respective residential houses. The trial Court is dealing with that issue and hence it will be appropriate to avoid further complications and litigation, hence petitioners are permitted to intervene in the matter. Their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Is granted to that extent. Respondent nos. 1 to 16 shall join them as intervenors in the matter and trial Court shall hear them in accordance with the law. In view of above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the court below is quashed and set aside. The trial Court shall hear the petitioners in accordance with law, while adjudicating the suit. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.