FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 1 Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. --- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010. 1. An interlocutory order passed by the trial court below Exhibit .77 in Special civil Suit No. 196/2003 dated 4/2/2010 is subjected to challenge in this petition at the instance of the petitioners/ original defendants. 2. The respondent plaintiff instituted a suit, claiming a decree of declaration, possession and perpetual injunction in respect of Plot NO. 8A in Survey Nos. 95, sheet No.67 City Survey NO. 20278, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad. The petitioner contends that considering the contentions raised in the plaint and more specifically in para.9,10,11,12, and 18A of the plaint, one Pravin Sable is a necessary party to the suit. It is also a defence raised by the defendant that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 3. The defendant in the application below Exhibit 77, FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 2 requested the court for impleadment of Mr. Pravin Sable as party to the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent and the trial court, on considering the rival contentions, has turned down the application. 4. It is to be noted that the plaintiff is the domonus litis. He is the master of the suit. Although there is an averment of interest of Mr. Pravin Sable in the suit property, the plaintiff has chosen not to implead him as party to the suit. The defendants/petitioners have also raised a defence in the written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and more specifically relief cannot be granted in the absence of said third party, namely, Mr. Pravin Sable. The trial court will surely take into consideration the defence raised by the defendants. However, the third party need not be directed to be impleaded in the suit presented by the plaintiff against the wishes of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, no interference is called at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings. The writ petition is summarily rejected. [R.M. BORDE,J.] grt/