1 wp 4317.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4317 OF 2009 Laxmikant Bhawanji Lapsiya ...PETITIONER VERSUS Vijay Hari Neve (Deceased) through his L.Rs. 1. Smt. Pushpa W/o Vijay Neve and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S. A. Pradhan, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents through served. ... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 07TH MARCH, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and also contents of application and more particularly para 6 of his application and submitted that the interest of the petitioner is directly affected. He has become power of attorney subsequently on 03rd October, 2006. 2 wp 4317.09 Therefore, he could not have been added as plaintiff when the suit was filed. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the contention of the petitioner that his interest is directly affected since stair case on the eastern side of the suit building are common. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner should have been entertained by adding him as plaintiff in the original suit. 2. Though the respondents are served, none appears for the respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon perusal of impugned order it reveals that the suit is filed as back as on 04.07.1997. The petitioner herein has became the power of attorney on 03rd October, 2006. When this application was filed by the petitioner herein at that time matter was fixed for cross examination of the petitioner herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the C. P. C. and also the written submissions filed by the respondents, the Court came to the conclusion that no such application can be entertained. The petitioner who is defendant in the suit representing the plaintiff as power of attorney of the petitioner. Therefore, he is in the capacity of the power of attorney of the 3 wp 4317.09 plaintiffs. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to join as plaintiff. That apart, the Trial Court has given reasons in the impugned order. On independent scrutiny of the material brought on record and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merits, same stands dismissed. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Mar11