1 ndm 93 wp.8780.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8780 OF 2010 Mohammed Rizwan Abdul Kadar. ... Petitioner Vs. Abdul Haque Abdul Aziz and ors. ... Respondents -------- Ms. J.P.Thakkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Khan Javed Akhtar for Respondent No.1. -------- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23 rd November, 2010. P.C. 1 The Petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the 1 st defendant in a suit filed by the 1 st respondent for eviction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. By the impugned order passed on application at Exhibit – 13 filed by the 1 st respondent, the trial Court permitted the 1 st respondent to add a party as defendant No.8 and temporary injunction has granted against the Petitioner. Order granting temporary injunction is an order which can be subjected to an appeal. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with that part of the impugned order with liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. 2 Grievance of the Petitioner is that a defendant is permitted to be added on the basis of the allegations, which are totally false. The 2 learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there is evidence on record to show that the Petitioner continued to be in possession of the suit premises and the added respondent has no concern with the suit premises. 3 I have considered the submissions. The case of the 1 st respondent – plaintiff is that without his permission and permission of 2 nd to 7 th defendants, the 1 st defendant – Petitioner had inducted proposed defendant. The 1 st respondent has been accordingly permitted to amend the plaint by adding averments and by impleading the proposed defendant as the defendant No.8. The submissions made by the Petitioner are on merits of the suit. Whether the added defendant was inducted by the Petitioner is an issue which will have to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. The 1 st respondent – plaintiff is a dominus litis and hence he is entitled to add parties. No fault can be found with that part of the order by which amendment of the plaint has been permitted. It is obvious that the Petitioner will be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 4 All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit kept open. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]