1 wp5852.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 5852 of 2010 Mr. Don Bosco Thomas Ghosal ... Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Vijaya Nanalal Ayatoda ... Respondents Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the petitioner. Miss Prachi Tatke i/b. V.A. Sugdave for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 21, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable, forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th November, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff for impleading defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 as party defendants came to be rejected. 2 wp5852.10.sxw 4. Plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction and possession on the ground that the tenant has carried out material alterations in the suit premises without his permission and for bonafide requirement. The original tenant was deceased Nanalal. The suit originally came to be filed against his wife and one daughter. However, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner came to know that the deceased tenant had two more daughters and, therefore, the application came to be filed under provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. The same is rejected. 5. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. 6. Ms. Prachi Tatke, the learned Counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that learned trial Judge has given sound and cogent reasons for rejecting the application and as such no interference is warranted. 7. The plaintiff is a dominoes witness. In any case the proposed defendants who are sought to be brought on record are the legal heirs of deceased tenant. As such in order to avoid further technical complications, 3 wp5852.10.sxw the petitioner has moved the application in question. In that circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. Insofar as the prejudice that is caused to the respondents is concerned, the respondents can be compensated for the same. 8. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). However, this shall be subject to the costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs. 10,000/- in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On such cost be deposited, the respondents-defendants would be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B.R. GAVAI, J)