IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 2010 SHRI. VASUDEV A. TALAWNEKAR AND 4 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI PRABHAKAR S. NAIK AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 9th June, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.25/2010. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit against the defendants, inter alia, for permanent injunction. The defendants on being served summons set up a plea that they were labourers of the family of Shantaram Talawanekar and then filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 for impleading the widow and other children of the said Shantaram Talawanekar. That application has been granted by the learned trial Court observing that their presence would be necessary to properly adjudicate the suit in totality and finality. 3. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs has placed reliance on para no.11 of New Red Bank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Kumkum Mittal & Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 402) and submitted that in case the defendants have taken up the plea that they are the labourers of the family of the said Shantaram Talawanekar, it would be free for them to prove the same. Learned Counsel, however, does not dispute that there is a long pending dispute as between the plaintiffs and the family of the said Shantaram Talawanekar. I have perused the said decision wherein it is stated that a person to be added as a party should have a direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest. Proposed defendants have direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. On the facts of the case and considering the averments made by the defendants who are sought to be injuncted by the plaintiffs, in my view, the discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 4. This is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition accordingly is disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH