:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 902 OF 2008 Mr.Mirza Raziulla Baig ...Petitioner Versus Mukhtar Ahmed Munna Khan and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.J.D.Khairnar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Y.R. Momin, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed on 30.11.2007 below Exhibit-16 in Civil Suit No.96 of 2007. That is a suit filed by the present petitioner against the orginal respondent no.2 for claiming possession. 2. The applicant, third party filed an application before the Revisional Court to implead him as a party to this suit and which application is :2: :2: :2: allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the original plaintiff-petitioner before me has invoked this court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Revisional Court has impleaded the third party as a party defendant to the suit because he has filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 71 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division for possession against the present petitioner, so also, the licensee on the basis of title. 4. While it may be true that the presence of third party may not be necessary, so also, an effective decree can be passed, even if the Applicant-third party is not before the court, yet, in the peculiar facts of this case when both the petitioner and the applicant-third party are interested in evicting the licensee from the property, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is clarified that no Issues shall be framed with regard to the title of the petitioner and the third party to the suit, so also, the joinder of the third party shall not in any manner :3: :3: :3: preclude the petitioner from raising appropriate contentions with regard to his title in Special Civil Suit No. 71 of 2007. The order passed by the Trial Court is maintained, also because the Counsel appearing for the Third party states before me that he will not seek any relief as against the petitioner in Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 2007 but would rather support the plea that the licensee should be evicted from the immovable property. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- *****