1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.82 OF 2009 Sunil s/o. Vitthal Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Shahaji s/o.Shankar Gawali .. Respondents - Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate holding for Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27/11/2008, by which the learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aurangabad has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for joining one Prakash Raghunath Patil as party to the suit. 2. The respondent has filed a suit against the present petitioner for recovery of possession. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner was put in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the agreement executed between them and since 2 the defendant had committed breach of the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession. In the said suit, counter claim is also filed. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for joining one Prakash Raghunath Patil as defendant on the ground that there was an earlier agreement between the present respondent and the said Shri Prakash Patil. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Shri Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. He submits that for complete and effective adjudication of the suit in question, the presence of Shri Prakash Patil is necessary. 4. Shri Kakade, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. He submits that the application is nothing but an attempt to prolong the proceeding of the suit. 5. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the plaintiff has closed the evidence 3 on 27th March, 2008 and thereafter the present application was filed by the petitioner. It can not be in dispute that the present petitioner is very well aware about the earlier agreement between the plaintiff and said Shri Prakash Patil. The petitioner could have very well moved an application for joining the said Shri Prakash Patil at an earlier stage. In any case, it can be seen that the petitioner has not claimed any relief against said Shri Prakash Patil. 6. If the petitioner finds that evidence of said Shri Patil is necessary, the petitioner can very well examine him as a defence witness. Interference by this court in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution would be warranted only if it is found that the discretion exercised by the trial court is exercised in a perverse manner. The learned trial court has given cogent and sound reasons for not exercising the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/