1 wp8667.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8667 OF 2010 [Ajaykumar @ Gopal Kanhiyalal Varma vs. Fakira Abdul Rajjak Rangrej & Ors. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.B. Sandanshiv, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This petition is filed challenging the order dated 11-08-2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad below Exhibit-50 in Regular Civil Suit No.200 of 2007. By way of said order dated 11-08-2010 the trial Court is pleased to allow the application below Exhibit-50 filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein for impleading them as the plaintiffs. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2 wp8667.10 petitioner invited my attention to Order 1 Rule 8 and in particular Rule 8 sub rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the public notice was published in the year 2007 thereby mentioning therein the date i.e. 01-01-2008 that, any person having interest in the subject matter of the suit can become party to the said suit before 01-01-2008. In spite of such specific date given in the public notice which was published in 2007, after lapse of two years, the application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein, has been allowed, and thereby they are impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order of injunction is operating against the petitioner and if the public notice itself mentions date i.e. 01-01-2008, to apply either to become plaintiffs or defendants in the suit on or before 01-01-200, the impugned order which 3 wp8667.10 is passed after two years on an application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for joining them as plaintiffs is illegal and cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that, there will be no end for entertaining such application and entertaining such application would delay the disposal of suit for indefinite period. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted that, there is no limitation provided in Order 1 Rule 8 sub rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for entertaining such application. The reasons given by the trial Court are sound and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. On plain reading of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is abundantly clear that 4 wp8667.10 there is no any time limit stipulated for entertaining the application filed by the parties for becoming party to the suit. That apart, these are the provisions which are procedural in nature. The affected parties have every right to become party to the suit and such right cannot taken away on technicalities. It is true that, the application is entertained after two years from the publication of notice. However, when the outcome of the suit is likely to affect on the persons, they are necessary parties to the suit, in order to do complete justice to the parties and to put an end to controversy in the suit. The impugned order appears to have been passed by the trial Court in the interest of justice. . In my opinion, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure are only procedural in nature 5 wp8667.10 which would not take away the rights of the parties to become party to the suit. No case is made out for interference. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11