1 wp 7010.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7010 OF 2011 Dr. Mustafa Khan Mansoor Khan .. Petitioner Versus Babasaheb Pandurangrao Jadhav and others .. Respondents Shri S. S. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri V. V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs, who have filed suit for possession of encroached area as against the present respondent No. 4. The present petitioner filed an application for impleading him as a party. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Kazi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 2 wp 7010.11 that the petitioner has also filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal bearing suit No. 54/2008 against the present plaintiffs for possession of encroached area. The said suit is sub-judice. The learned counsel further contends that the present petitioner is President of the Committee looking after the management of the Masjid. In view of the fact that the present plaintiffs have encroached the property of the Masjid, the present petitioner is necessary party in the present suit. The learned counsel further contends that the proof of boundaries would be a matter of evidence. At this stage the same is not required to be proved. The petitioner has shown his interest in the suit property and as such is required to be impleaded by virtue of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the original plaintiffs and Shri Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 support the order passed. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is appointed as a President of the committee formed to look after the Masjid. Moreover, the Court has discussed that the petitioner has filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal in respect of 3 wp 7010.11 the property bearing No. 1-76. The present suit is concerned with part of the property bearing No. 1-98. The boundaries do not appear to be overlapping. Of course, these are prima facie observations made by the Court. 5. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. Even otherwise any judgment and decree passed in the present suit would not be binding on the present petitioner. The plaintiffs are already parties in a suit filed by the present petitioner before the Wakf Tribunal. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not think any error has been committed by the trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner. In view of that no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11