SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8160 OF 2006 Shri Ajaykumar Ghanashyamdas Proprietors & Developers Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners Versus Shree Saurashtra Jain Mitra Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.A.Thorat for Petitioners. Ms.Ranjana Parikh for Respondents 1 to 3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Ms.Parikh waives notice for Respondents 1 to 3, who are the contesting Respondents. Notice to other Respondents is dispensed with, as they are formal parties. : 2 : 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai dated 12th October 2006 below Interim Notice No.1998 of 2006 in R.A.E.Suit No.1926 of 1998. The impugned order was passed on the composite application preferred by the Respondent No.3-third party for impleadment and for amendment of Plaint. The Court below without recording any reason whatsoever has allowed the said application inspite of the objection by the Plaintiffs that such prayer at the instance of third party cannot be granted in fact or in law. 5. It is surprising that the lower Court has not even adverted to any of the contentions raised by the Petitioners (Defendants) except to observe that the Advocate for the Defendants was heard. In the circumstances, instead of examining each of the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners (Defendants) for opposing grant of relief as prayed : 3 : by the third party, the appropriate course to my mind is to set-aside the impugned Judgment and Order and instead restore the application Interim Notice No.1998 of 2006 to the file of the Trial Court to be reconsidered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf will have to be kept open. 6. Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, who are the contesting Respondents, submits that the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition has already been acted upon by carrying out necessary amendment. Needless to observe that the said amendment though carried out in terms of impugned order will be subject to the outcome of the final decision on Interim Notice No.1998 of 2006. If the said notice was to be eventually rejected by the lower Court or by the superior Court, the amendments though carried out, will have to be treated as effaced from the record. 7. Accordingly, this Petition succeeds on the above terms. No order as to costs. : 4 : 8. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 6th October 2008 when the Trial Court shall proceed with the hearing of the restored Notice, to be decided as expeditiously as possible. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.