1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7885 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.N.Kalani, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for specific performance against Respondent Nos.2 to 4. In the said suit, the present petitioner filed an application for impleading as a party. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Kalani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the year 2003, had already filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit the present Respondent No.1 has filed an application for impleading him as a party. The suit property in the present suit is also one of the property in the 2 suit filed by the present petitioner for partition. The petitioner has interest in the subject matter of the present suit. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioner is necessary party. The Respondents inter se would obtain a collusive decree which would lead to further complications. The learned counsel contends that to avoid all this, the petitioner is required to be added as a party. 4. To add a particular person as a party to the suit is the discretion of the Court U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The person who is a necessary or proper party only can be added as a party U/o I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. In the present matter the petitioner can not be said to be a necessary or proper party inasmuch as no right to relief exist in favour of the plaintiff as against the present petitioner in the present suit. If any decree is passed in the present suit, the same would not be binding on the petitioner as he is not a party to the suit. It is for the plaintiff to establish his right in his suit for partition and separate possession. In view of the above, no error is committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. 5. The Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.10.2011. asp/office/wp7885.11 3