1 wp10906.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10906 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Deshmukh holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. M.P. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent no.2. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Salunke for petitioners, Mrs. V.A. Deshmukh for respondent no.1 and Mr. M.P. Kolpe for respondent no.2. 2. Respondent no.1 has filed a suit against the respondent no.2-A.P.M.C. and in that suit, the present petitioners wanted to get themselves impleaded. According to petitioners, they are in possession and the respondent no.1 who claims to be in possession has got no right or title to the property and is not in possession. Respondent no.2-A.P.M.C. which happens to be sole defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff has pointed out that there is no agreement between respondent no.2- 2 wp10906.10 A.P.M.C. and respondent no.1. Learned Counsel further states that during pendency of petitioners' application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, the respondent no.1 has tried to forcibly interfere in the possession of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 points out that the respondent no.1 has not sought any relief against the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2-A.P.M.C. has stated that appropriate facts are already placed before the trial Court by A.P.M.C. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, I am satisfied that the respondent no.2 A.P.M.C. is defending the matter diligently. It has pointed out that there is no agreement entered into between the respondent no.2-A.P.M.C. and the respondent no.1 in so far as the suit property is concerned. It pointed out that the suit property was given to father of the present petitioners and the petitioners are in possession. 6. In this situation, as the respondent no.1 has chosen not to implead the petitioners as party, the respondent no. 1 is not seeking any relief against them, it is apparent that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners even if any orders are passed in the suit as filed. Hence, at this 3 wp10906.10 stage, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. With liberty to the petitioners to make their grievance again and keeping all their contentions open, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 04.02.2011 gas/wp10906.10