{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4086 OF 2009 Keshav s/o Satwaji Shinde, since deceased, through L.Rs. & another Petitioners Versus Sachin s/o Suryakant Gundewar and others Respondents Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr.A.A.Mukhedkar, advocate for respondents no.1 & 2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 7 th September, 2010 PER COURT: 1 The trial Court has issued direction in respect of impleadment of necessary parties in exercise of powers under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 In a suit presented by plaintiffs seeking possession of disputed property, an objection was raised by defendants in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties. The suit proceeded and at a later point of time, plaintiffs presented an application at Exhibit-115 requesting the Court to permit the plaintiffs to implead necessary {2} parties to the suit. Necessary parties are the other legal heirs of deceased father of plaintiffs. In fact, in order to avoid the objection in respect of non joinder of necessary parties, impleadment of legal heirs of deceased father of plaintiffs was essential. 3 The trial Court, however, has overlooked this aspect and proceeded to reject the application for carrying out amendment to the plaint. The Court has, however, realised the error and issued a direction in exercise of powers under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of necessary parties. 4 I have perused both the orders passed by the trial Court and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. In fact, it was an error on the part of trial Court to turn down the application presented by plaintiffs seeking amendment to the plaint and extending request for impleadment of necessary parties to the suit. The parties, which are required to be impleaded are the other legal heirs of deceased father of plaintiffs. The interest of legal heirs of deceased father of plaintiffs is not adverse to the interest of plaintiffs. However, in order to avoid objection in respect of non joinder of necessary parties, their impleadment was warranted. The trial Court, ought not to have passed contradictory orders, firstly rejecting the application tendered by plaintiffs and secondly, directing plaintiffs, on his own, to implead necessary parties. The fact, however, remains that the {3} final order passed by the trial Court directing impleadment of necessary parties is not illegal. There is procedural error committed by the trial Court in passing different orders in the suit. However, every procedural irregularity need not be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court. Even if I find that there is some procedural irregularity in passing the order, ultimately, I am of the opinion that impleadment of necessary parties will meet ends of justice and as such, this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp408609