IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2572 OF 2009 Neeta D/O.Late Shri.Mathuresh Goswami ...Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Dharam Sharma with Uma Sharma i/b Dharam & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.D.Jaywant for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Malvankar waives notice for Respondent No.1. Mr.Jaywant waives notice for Respondent No.3. : 2 : 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. For the reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.2571 of 2009, even this Writ Petition succeeds on the same terms. 5. In the present Petition, however, the Respondent No.3 is the cousin of Respondent in the companion Writ Petition. According to Respondent No.3 in this Petition, he is proper party in the Suit as he is priest in the temple which is housed in the suit structure. Admittedly, this Respondent No.3 had neither filed complaint nor filed any Writ Petition as is the case of Respondent No.3 in the companion Writ Petition. As aforesaid, for the same reasons stated in the order in the companion matter, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondent No.3 in the present Petition is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Respondent No.3, however, is free to appear as witness of the Corporation, if he is so advised. : 3 : The Corporation is willing to examine the Respondent No.3 as its witness who in turn can support the cause of the Corporation. 6. Petition allowed on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.