1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 439 OF 2009 Sau. Usha w/o. Ravindra Bachate, Age 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o. E.115/10, Garkheda Parisar, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1] Kashinath s/o. Annarao Pujari, Age 78 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gurav Galli, Parli Vaijnath, Dist Beed. 2] Rajabhau s/o. Kashinath Pujari Age 60 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. As above. 3] Suresh S/o. Kashinath Pujari, Age 38 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. As above. 4] Ramesh s/o. Kashinath Pujati Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. As above. 5] Nilesh s/o. Kashinath Punari Age 21 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. As above. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the respondent NO.1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 21st November, 2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4/11/2009, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for joining her as party respondent in R.C.S. No. 69/2007, came to be rejected. 2] The petitioner is a daughter of respondent No.1. Rest of the respondents are her brother/step brothers. 3] R.C.S. No.69/2007 came to be filed by the respondent NO.1 herein, i.e. The father against his sons, claiming for injunction restraining his sons, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein, from interfering with his peaceful possession of land Gat No. 191. It further appears that subsequently R.C.S. No. 86/2008, came to be filed by the present petitioner for partition and separate possession. The petitioners thereafter filed application for impleading them as party to the suit in R.C.S No. 69/2007. 4] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is a necessary party inasmuch as , she has also claim her right in the ancestral property rights. He submits that the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. 5] Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel for the respondent NO.1 submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. Rest of the respondents, though duly served, are not present before this court. 3 6] Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial court has found that the suit filed by the respondent No.1 was a suit for injunction simplicitor against his sons. It has been found that the petitioner has already filed a separate suit for partition and possession. If she is in a position to establish her claim, she might get relief in her suit. It is further found that the present petitioner was not a necessary party in so far as the claim in the suit filed by her father. 7] It has further been found by the learned trial court that the application was filed after issues were framed and after the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was filed by the respondent No.1 The trial court found that the suit was ready for hearing. The respondent No.1 is more than 70 years of age and, therefore, possibility of application being filed for prolonging the trial could not be ruled out. 8] No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court. Hence, writ petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-