ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6169 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6169 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6169 OF 2008 Smt.Sushila K.Donde & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. M/s.Saviles (P) Ltd.& Ors. ...Respondents. Shri Kantilal Kanojia i/by M/s.Bhave & Co. for the Petitioners. Shri C.T.Kripalani for Respondent No.6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 6th October, 2008. : 6th October, 2008. : 6th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby challenge is made to an order dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the Appellate Court of Small Causes, at Bandra, Mumbai, whereby the Application under Order XXXXI, Rule 20 read with Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") was rejected and therefore, the Applicant to this application not permitted to joint as a party in the Appeal. 2. Admittedly, the Plaintiff on 7th February, 2006, filed a Notice No.139 of 2006 that the names of the Applicants (Defendant Nos.2 to 5) be struck off. ( 2 ) After hearing both the parties, based upon the material available on record, by an order dated 24/02/2006, the Trial Court has deleted the names of these Applicants. The said order remained unchallenged. Therefore, after completing hearing in the said suit on 03/05/2006, the trial Court passed the decree for eviction against Defendant No.1 Company from the suit flat. The Appeal filed by the Defendant No.1-Company challenging the said decree for eviction is pending. 3. In view of this the Application, now as filed by the Petitioners-Applicants on 15/10/2007 with prayer to implead them as party Respondents, as observed rightly is untenable. Therefore, rejection of such Application needs no interference. Admittedly, Defendant Nos.2,3,4 and 5 were not party to the suit. The names were deleted as not necessary party to the suit. No such challenge was raised by Defendant No.1 and other original plaintiffs except these Applicants. The Court has definitely a discretion to add the parties if those are necessary and are proper party. But, in the present case as already recorded after hearing both the parties, the names were deleted from the Suit proceedings and the trials were proceeded ( 3 ) accordingly. Such Application, therefore, filed by these applicants in the Appeal preferred by Defendant No.1 re-contending that they are necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, rightly rejected. 4. In view of this, as the order is within the framework of law and the record and as there is no perversity, the present Writ Petition is, dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)