1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2008 (Smt.Disha Vitthalrao Vandhe and others .v. Sanjay Maheshchandra Gupta and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.K. Gulhane, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 29TH JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31st October, 2007 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for amendment to the Written Statement came to be rejected. A suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the present petitioners so also the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The present petitioners have resisted the said suit by filing Written Statement. An application for amendment of Written Statement came to be filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, contending therein that one Smt. Manubai and her children had 2 filed a suit against the present petitioners for partition, separate possession, declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, the petitioners sought permission to amend their Written Statement to point out the the pleadings regarding filing of the said suit by Smt. Manubai and her children. It is the contention of the petitioners that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary parties. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. Shri V.K. Gulhane, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the petitioners wanted to bring on record the claim made by the respondent against the petitioner, it was necessary that the application for amendment ought to have allowed. Shri Mahesh Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment and as such no interference is called for. It can be seen from the record that the plaintiff has made claim against the petitioners. If it is subsequently found that any party which is required to be the necessary party, has not been joined as party- defendant by the plaintiff, the plaintiff may suffer for the same. The plaintiff is a dominus litis and it is the choice 3 of the plaintiff as to who shall be the party to the suit. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.