: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4708 OF 2009 Anita K. Bhosale & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Ajit K. Phage & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.D. Raut for Petitioners None for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 17TH JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petitioners have approached this Court contending that the trial Court has wrongly rejected their application for being joined as party defendants in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 against the other respondents. The petitioners claim to be relatives of Respondent Nos.2 to 20. According to the petitioners, they have illegally sold the property which was jointly owned by the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 20 to Respondent No.1. A suit for specific performance has been filed by Respondent No.1 on the basis of the agreement for sale executed between him and Respondent Nos.2 to 20. The petitioners claim that they should be joined as party defendants before the trial Court. That application has been rejected and hence the present petition. : 2 : 2. The trial Court has observed and in my opinion rightly that the petitioners would have to prove that they have an interest in the suit property. No material was produced on record to show that they had any interest or share in the suit property. The trial Court has again correctly observed that the plaintiff is dominus litus and is in charge of the proceedings. 3. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court as the plaintiffs would have to prove by way of an independent action that they have interest in the suit property and that they have a grievance against either the first respondent or the other respondent. 4. The learned advocate for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v/s. Empress Mills, 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 701 in which the Division Bench has held that when a party is to be impleaded, the test should be whether the person seeking impleadment has a right or interest in the subject matter which is being tried. If the answer is in the affirmative then such a person is a necessary party. In the present case, as observed by the trial Court, rightly, there was no material on record to establish that the petitioners had any interest in the property. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected.