1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3435/2009 (Mahadeo Thakre ..vs.. Rajesh Sakore and another ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 10, 2009 Heard finally by consent of parties. Advocate Shri Bhamburkar for petitioner- plaintiff has pointed out that while rejecting application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of Code Civil Procedure, a binding finding has been delivered, thereby stating that proposed defendant Nos. 3 & 4 are not necessary parties. Learned counsel argues that such a finding could not have been delivered without adding those persons as party. He further states that as parties were sought to be added, the amendment ought to have been allowed and the same could not have been rejected only on the ground that recording of evidence has already begun. Advocate Miss Tanna hass strongly opposed 2 the prayer. She states that suit is of the year 1999 and evidence of four witnesses is already recorded. In these circumstances, according to her, no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Perusal of impugned order shows that some evidence of plaintiff has already been recorded. It, therefore, shows that trial had already begun and the suit is of year 1999. In the circumstances, as remedy of challenging order passed below Exh.86 before appellate forum is available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction at this stage. However, it is clarified that while considering the prayer for amendment, a finding as to correctness of adding or joining respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the suit could not have been delivered. The said finding on point No.1 to that extent is unsustainable. However, for the reasons already recorded above, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner-plaintiff to challenge said order along with said finding before appropriate forum, if he is required to challenge it. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.