1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4368 OF 2009 Shri. Chunilal Thakarsi Satra .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Nalini Ghanshyam Khatri & Ors .. Respondents A.B. Kadam for the petitioner Amit B. Borkar for the respondents CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 28th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the first defendant in a suit filed by the first to fifth respondent. The suit was filed by the first to fifth respondents for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The sixth respondent herein was impleaded as the second defendant. An application was made by the first to fifth respondents praying that the sixth respondent (original second defendant) be transposed as plaintiff no. 6. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge has Rma wp4368-09.sxw 2 allowed the said application. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application was made by the first to fifth respondent after issues were settled. He submitted that there is no consequential amendment carried out to the plaint by the first to fifth respondents. He pointed out that on the date on which the application was filed by the first to fifth respondents, the sixth respondent appeared for the first time by filing vakalatnama of his advocate. 3. I have considered the submissions. In the plaint, it is asserted that one Ghanshyam Dattatray Khatri was the landlord. The first and the second plaintiffs are the wives of the deceased landlord. It is asserted that third and forth plaintiffs are the sons of the deceased landlord and fifth plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased landlord. It is specifically stated in the plaint the respondent no. 6 (second defendant) is also a son of the deceased landlord. It is stated in the plaint that the sixth respondent was not available for signature when the suit was filed as he was in Saudi Arabia and therefore, he has been Rma wp4368-09.sxw 3 impleaded as the second defendant. 4. Thus, the second defendant was impleaded as proforma defendant as he was not available to sign the plaint. The original plaintiffs could have filed the suit even without impleading the said second defendant. The effect of the impugned order is that the second defendant who was a proforma defendant has been transposed as a plaintiff and admittedly, the second defendant is one of the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. 5 There is no error in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. JUDGE Rma wp4368-09.sxw 4 Rma wp4368-09.sxw