(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11698 OF 2010 Shri Vishnu Genu Nikalaje, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Nipani Neemgaon, Taluka : Newasa, .. Petitioners District : Ahmednagar, (Original intervenors) and 4 others. versus Shri Baburao Rajaram Nikalaje, .. Respondents Age : 45 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Agriculture, plaintiff R/o. Nipani Neemgaon, & Taluka : Newasa, Nos.2 to 5 - District : Ahmednagar, Original defendants) and 4 others. ....................... Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.4 / caveator. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 / caveator. 2. The petitioner filed application for joining him as a party in Regular Civil Suit No. 362/2010 instituted by present respondents. That application has been rejected by the trial court after noticing that rights inter se between parties and their status is already adjudicated upon. 3. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, points out that there was an earlier suit for partition between the parties and in that suit, respondent no.2 was found entitled to part of the property. The adjudication therein is questioned by the present petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the prayer for condoning delay therein is still pending. He has further urged that there is no partition by metes and bounds as on today and proceedings under Section 54 are also going on. (3) 4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in this situation, respondents together filed instant suit only to create complications. He further states that as part of property involved in Regular Civil Suit No. 362/2010 is claimed by the present petitioner, he is entitled to be impleaded in that suit. 5. Mr. R.P. Phatke, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 / caveator, has supported the impugned order. 6. After perusal of the impugned order, I find that the trial court has looked into all contentions and all developments. It has also noticed that there was already an adjudication. However, the trial court has not considered the fact of pendency of proceedings filed by the petitioners before the appellate court. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners specifically on the question of pendency of proceedings before the appellate court. It is apparent that the court below is aware of adjudication in Regular Civil Suit No. 280/1992 and the further adjudication in appeal (if any) will also be binding on parties. The petitioner is not prejudiced, in any way, in the matter. (4) 8. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the approach adopted by the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, misconceived. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11698