spb/- 1 wp5444-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5444 OF 2010 1 Bhandarshah Dargah Masjid Takiya (Kabrastan) and Talim Trust and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. 1 Mohamed Ali Guru Murtuzasha @ Mohammed Ali Sayyed Gulam Ali & others. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Rajsekhar V. Govilkar for the Petitioners. Mr. P.V. Dube for the Respondent No.1. Mr. R.M. Momin for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 06th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the learned Jt.Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune, rejecting the petitioners’ application for joining them as parties to the suit. Petitioner no.1 is a public trust and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 claim to be its trustees. They are the third party to the suit. 2 The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 to 5 are the original defendants. Respondent no. 1 claims to be the owner of the suit property. Respondent no.2 is joined as the defendant no.1 in spb/- 2 wp5444-10.sxw the suit in his individual capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra State Board of Wakf. Respondent no.3 is joined as defendant no.2 in the suit in his individual capacity as well as Clerk in the office of the defendant no.1. Respondent no.4 is the Joint Charity Commissioner and is joined as defendant no.3 to the suit. Respondent no.5 is Assistant/Dy. Charity Commissioner and is joined as the defendant no.4 in the suit. 3 It is the case of the petitioners, that the respondent no.3 (defendant no.2) has an ill will against them and in collusion with the respondent no.2 and the plaintiff, he is likely to declare the suit properties to be the properties of the Wakf. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit. In the suit, he alleged that by the compromise recorded by Misc. application No. 11 of 1987 by the District Court, the disputed properties of the trust were declared to be the properties of the trust and not of the Wakf and the plaintiff was to be paid an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- and in addition was to be allotted four flats of 750 sq.ft. each in the proposed building to be constructed on the suit property. He, therefore, prayed for injunction, restraining the respondent no. 2 (defendant no.1) by a perpetual injunction from passing any orders in relation to the suit properties. In the suit, the petitioners appeared as spb/- 3 wp5444-10.sxw third party and made an application for being joined as party to the suit. By the order dated 3rd May, 2010, the trial court rejected their application. That order is impugned in the present petition. 4 Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable because the respondent no.2 (defendant No.1) could not be joined as party to the suit in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, as there was a bar so to do under the Wakf Act. He further submitted that in any event the respondent no.1 is no more the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board and therefore, also the suit was not maintainable. He further submitted that similarly, the Joint Charity Commissioner and the Assistant/Dy. Charity Commissioner also could not be joined as parties to the suit. 5 It may be mentioned that in this petition, this court is not concerned with the maintainability of the suit. That issue would be decided by the court as and when the suit is heard. What is required to be considered in this petition is whether the trial court committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for joining them as party -defendants to the suit. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is dominus litis spb/- 4 wp5444-10.sxw and he has the choice to whom to join as parties to the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, however, empowers the court at any stage of the suit to join any person as a party to the suit if it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do. In the present case, I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the court to join the present petitioners as party to the suit for deciding any matter in controversy to the suit. No injunction has been sought by the plaintiff against the present petitioners. The trial court has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioners (original applicants before the trial court) were not concerned with the suit property. Nothing was brought on record to show that the petitioners were the owners of the suit property or their rights were likely to be affected by reason of they being parties to the suit. In the circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for joining them as party to the suit. 6 Petition is rejected summarily. All interim relief orders stand vacated. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]