1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.470/2011 with Civil Application No. /2011 in Writ Petition No.6119/2010 (D) [Ankush s/o Namdeorao Kalhane and another .vrs. Namdeorao s/o Shankarshaha Kalhane (deceased) and five others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. Heard. The order of the Civil Court refusing to expunge certain parts of cross examination was questioned before the learned Single Judge. However, Civil Court was not joined as party respondent. The appellants are challenging the rejection of his writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition the challenge was to order dated 25.11.2010 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil 2 Suit No. 116 of 2006. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, points out that the petition as filed before the learned Single Judge was under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He invites attention to the Civil Application No. /2011 to urge that it is to permit amendment and to implead the trial Court and the appellate court as parties respondents. He states that amendment is sought in the memo of appeal and also in the memo of petition as filed before the learned Single Judge. He is relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 976 (Savitridevi .Vrs. District Judge, Gorakhpur) to urge that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Judicial Officers disposing of civil proceedings need not be joined as party respondent. In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 1963, Supreme Court, 786 (Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia .vrs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another), the larger Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in 1968 MH.L.J. NOC 1 (Muhammed Enamul Haque .Vrs. Muhammad Hussain), the Judgment of full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (5) MH.L.J., 193 (Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari through Lrs. Smt 3 Lilabai Ramchandra Rangari and others. Vrs. Vishwanath Champat Naik and another ) the Judgment of full Bench, reported in 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 916 (Advani Oerlinkon Ltd .Vrs. Machindra Govind Makasare and others) and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shetty ..Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 = 2010 (7) SCALE 428, we find that the Letters Patent Appeal as filed is not tenable. The provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India were not properly invoked and the writ of certiorari could not have been issued in absence of the Court as parties. In this situation, Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. It is apparent that the prayer in Civil application that leave to amend the memo of petition as prayed is misconceived as Letters Patent Appeal itself is not tenable. We, therefore, reject the said civil application. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of as not maintainable with liberty to the appellants to take such steps as are open to him in law. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande