1 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3605 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri A.B. Avhad for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2010 P.C.: . The Petitioner who is not a party to the suit for recovery of an amount filed by the 1st Respondent – bank made an application under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. While rejecting the application, the learned Trial Judge has held that even if any order is passed in the suit directing the Defendants to pay outstanding balance or any charge is kept on the flat which is referred to in the prayer clause (e) of the Plaint, the said order will not be binding on the present Petitioner. The Court further observed that the 2 legal right of the Petitioner, if any, in respect of the flat will always remain in tact. After making the aforesaid observations, the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. 2. In view of what is held by the learned Judge which is set out above, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)