1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6402 OF 2009 Padminibai w/o Kashinath Bonge, Age: 46 years, Occ: Household,& Agri., R/o. Amba, Tq. Partur, District Jalna & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Jalna Dist. Jalna & Anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. Vishal A. Bagul Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 08-12-2008 vide which the application filed by respondent No. 2 for impleading him as party respondent in the 2 proceeding initiated by the present petitioners, came to be allowed. 2. The petitioners had filed an application before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Partur claiming for declaration that they are legal heirs of deceased Girdhar Sakharam Wadekar. In the said proceeding, an application came to be filed by respondent No. 2 claiming therein that the deceased Girdhar had executed a will deed in favour of him, thereby bequeathing House No. 30/2 in his favour. The application is allowed. Hence the present petition. 3. Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submit that the impugned order is totally an unreasoned order. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Ramesh Kumar, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6595 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the 3 case of Laxmikant Tukaram Chaudhari and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J.150, he submits that since the order impugned is not speaking order, it is passed without application of mind and therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. No doubt, that it is settled law that every judicial order has to be a speaking order. In the present case, it can clearly be seen that the learned Judge while allowing the application filed by respondent No. 2, found that the proceedings initiated by the present petitioner were also concerning to House No. 30/2 and that respondent No. 2 herein was claiming interest in the said house property on the basis of alleged will deed executed by deceased Girdhar in his favour. It can, thus, clearly be seen that the order discloses the reason on which it has been passed. 4 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is rejected. (B.R. GAVAI,J.) sut/DEC09/wp6402.09