1 WP 2978/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2978 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. D.M. Gupte for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 28 October 2009 passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the petitioners’ application for deleting the name of petitioner no.2 from the suit. 3. Petitioner no.1 is the wife and the petitioner no.2 is her husband. The respondents filed a suit against both of the 2 WP 2978/10 petitioners for specific performance of an agreement for sale. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.2 had not signed the agreement of sale as a vendor but had signed it only as a witness and, therefore, he was not a necessary party to the suit. They, therefore, applied to the court for deleting his name as party defendant no.2 from the suit. The trial court rejected the application. Aggrieved petitioners are before this Court. 4. Admittedly, the agreement bears the signature of petitioner no.2. It is his contention that he had not signed as a vendor but had signed it as an attesting witness. This point may require adjudication after recording of the evidence. Further more, by joining the petitioner no.2 as a party the respondents have given an opportunity to the petitioner no.2 to raise any possible defence to the suit including that he was not bound by the agreement. On being asked whether petitioner no.2 was willing 3 WP 2978/10 to give an undertaking that if his name were to be deleted as party to the suit, he would not object to the execution of the decree, if any, that may be passed in the suit, the petitioner’s advocate categorically denied to give an undertaking. It thus appears that the petitioner no.2 wants to keep himself away from the suit and then contest the decree if adverse to the petitioners. Joining the petitioner no.2 as party to the suit would avoid the multiplicity of litigation and avoid further challenge to the decree, if there be any, at the hands of the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 would have an opportunity of raising all the defence in the present suit itself. Consequently, I find no error in the order of the trial court and, in any event, the order does not require interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)