1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.479 OF 2010 Baban Maruti Barate (since deceased through heirs & LRs) and others ...Petitioners vs. Baloba Maruti Ghodake (since deceased through heirs & Lrs) and others ...Respondents Mr.Mohan B. Jadhav for the petitioners Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioners are some of the defendants who have challenged the order by which the application made by the respondent nos.7 to 9 under sub rule 2 of rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has been allowed and respondent nos.7 to 9 have been impleaded as party defendants. The trial Court in the impugned order has recorded a finding that the respondent nos.7 to 9 appears to be owners and in possession of the suit property and are necessary parties to the suit. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Ramesh Chandra vs. Mukhtyar Singh and others (AIR 1980 Rajasthan page 21), even a defendant can make a grievance about the impleadment of a third party. 3 It is obvious that the observations made in the impugned order are only tentative observations for coming to the conclusion that the 7th to 9th respondents are necessary parties to the suit. The trial Court has not finally decided the issue of possession or title by the 2 impugned order. 4 The plaintiffs are dominus litis and they have chosen not to challenge the impugned order. 4 Hence, no case is made out for interference at the instance of the defendants in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, all contentions of the parties on the issue relating to possession and title are kept open. 5 Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE