IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1222 OF 2009 Shri Madhukar vasudeo Kanade & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. M/s.Vaibhav Developers & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Rajendra R.Mishra for Petitioners. Mr.R.D.Soni for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 4, 2009. MARCH 4, 2009. MARCH 4, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I see no infirmity in the approach of the Court below in rejecting the application for impleadment preferred by the Petitioners on the finding that the Petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties. Insofar as the argument of the Petitioners that they are in possession of suit property is concerned, the Respondents have rightly pointed out that the Petitioners have already filed : 2 : suit for specific performance in this Court against the real owner from whom the Petitioners are claiming title. The Petitioners, if so advised, may proceed to file Suit against the Respondent on the basis of his title with regard to the said suit property and ask for appropriate relief against the Respondent in the said Suit, if so advised. The Petitioners cannot be allowed to be impleaded in the present Suit, which is essentially between the Respondent and the neighbouring plot owner and for relief of simplicitor injunction. In such a Suit, the Petitioners cannot get any relief so as to prevent the Respondent from carrying on further construction on the suit property. 3. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. 4. It is made clear that the above observation is not an expression of any opinion on the merits of the controversy pending before the Revenue Authority. 5. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioners : 3 : submits that operation of this order be stayed. I see no propriety in acceding to this request. The same is rejected. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.