1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 OF 2008 (Mohd. Jakir Mohd. Shabbar vs. Smt. Farida Bano & Anr. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 16, 2008. Heard Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mundra, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 1995 is filed by the present respondents against the husband of predecessor in title of present petitioner. The case of the respondents shows that the respondents are not accepting Smt. Shahjada Begum to be the predecessor in title of present petitioner. In view of this dispute, it is apparent that the orders passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1995 cannot be straightway made applicable to SCS No. 49 of 1995. During arguments Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel has pointed out that lady Smt. Shajada Begum has also expired and she has left behind a Will. On account of said Will, the present petitioner inherits 1/3rd property and her husband inherits only 1/4th of 2/3rd as Shahjada Begum had 2 no issues. He states that because of law of inheritance, the balance property also falls to the share of present petitioner. According to him, in view of this position, the petitioner is entitled to be joined as party in SCS No. 49 of 1995. He points out that RCS No. 4 of 1995 and SCS No. 49 of 1995 are already clubbed together for their joint trial and joint decision. In view of the facts mentioned above and clubbing of both suits together, it is apparent that the facts showing whether present petitioner is necessary party to SCS No. 49 of 1995 or not will come before the Trial Court during adjudication. If the trial Court finds that the necessary party has not been joined to SCS No. 49 of 1995, it can pass appropriate orders in that SCS. The present petitioner has done his job by moving application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, which has been rejected by the trial Court. I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the approach of the trial Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.