FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.: 167 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 4508 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 10397 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.: 167 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 4508 OF 2008 1. We have heard learned counsel Mrs. Jagtap instructed by Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, who appears for the Appellant. 2. This appeal is by the original defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the Respondent/ original plaintiff - wife of defendant No.1, filed a suit for partition and separate possession before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded. It is further not in dispute that the defendants, after entering appearance, filed written statement. Defendant No.1 is the husband of original plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is father in law of the original plaintiff. In the written statement, filed by the defendants, grievance was raised that husband of the plaintiff/ wife was having three brothers and one sister, at the relevant time. They are not joined. The grievance of non-joinder of necessary parties was raised in the written statement. In view of this, plaintiff filed application seeking addition of three brothers and a sister of her husband. This application, after hearing the parties, was allowed by the trial Court by the order passed on 15th February, 2008. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. The trial Court exercised the discretionary power and jurisdiction under Subrule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This order was challenged by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Supervisory jurisdiction seems to have been exercised by the learned Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and upheld the order passed by the trial Court. Suit pends before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, no case for interference and/ or entertaining the letters patent appeal is established. Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. 4. In view of final disposal of the letters patient appeal itself, civil application No.10397 of 2008stands dismissed and disposed. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S. B. DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:25.06.2009 ans/167