1 W.P.2425.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2425 OF 2011 Sow Kaveri W/o Digamber Rathod and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Rajendra S/o Kishanrao Gupte ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.D.D.Kulkarni,Advocate for petitioners. Mr.P.V.Barde,Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Writ Petition filed is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Aurangabad. 2. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited my attention to Exhibit “C”, page No 21 of the compilation of the petition and 2 W.P.2425.11 submitted that the issues, which are proposed by the petitioners herein, which are mentioned in the application have not been included in the issues framed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court has not framed the issue in respect of maintainability of the suit and further issue i.e. clause [b] as mentioned in the application has not been also framed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further invited my attention to Exhibit “E” page No. 25 of the compilation, in particular paras No.3 and 4 of the impugned order and submitted that contention of the petitioners has not been dealt by the trial Court. The Trial Court in para No.3 of the order concluded that, the issues No. 8 and 9 those are the issues, which are framed in respect of money lending business without any licence and issue No.8 is framed about loan. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has addressed the issues raised by the 3 W.P.2425.11 petitioners/applicants. Merely, because those issues are not accepted or incorporated by the trial Court in the issues cannot led to infer that application of the petitioners has not been considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered in para Nos. 3 and 4 the submissions of the petitioners and rightly held that issue Nos. 8 and 9 will take care of the contentions of the petitioners. 4. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that CIDCO is necessary party in the suit is concerned, it is choice of the plaintiffs to whom they wish to add as party. Unless, the plaintiffs feel that CIDCO is necessary party, it is not for defendant to tell the plaintiffs to add CIDCO as necessary party. That apart, at any stage of the proceedings, the trial Court can direct the plaintiffs to add CIDCO as party, if trial Court feels it necessary. Therefore, for all these reasons, I do not find any substance in this Writ 4 W.P.2425.11 Petition. The Petition is devoid of merits, same stands rejected. The impugned order stands confirmed. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK