1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1909 OF 2007. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11663 OF 2008 Hiralal S/o Dadabhau Gawande and another ... Petitioners. Versus Anil S/o Hiralal Gawande and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 01.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in suit bearing (RCS No.359/1993) 2 seek to challenge order dated 3.3.2007, rendered by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Sangamner in an appeal bearing (RCA No.20/2005), whereby application (Exh.18) for addition of party was allowed subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). 3. The suit was filed by minor son and wife of the petitioner No.1 for partition and separate possession. In the written statement, the petitioners asserted that the suit property bearing Gat No.350 is his self-acquired and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He asserted that his mother and three sisters were the necessary parties to the suit. The learned Judge of the trial Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners and dismissed the suit on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. mother of the defendant No.1 and his sisters. In the appellate Court, the aggrieved plaintiffs, who filed appeal No.bearing (RCA No.20/2005) filed a belated application for permitting the joinder of necessary party, namely mother of the defendant No.1 i.e. Radhabai as 3 defendant No.1-A. The application was allowed by the first appellate Court and, therefore, this petition is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. 4. The suit came to be dismissed on technical ground is a fact. It is true that the application was filed at belated stage. Still, however, the addition of party was permitted in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. It can not be overlooked that the appeal is continuation of the suit and, therefore, such application could be entertained by the first appellate Court. The Respondents/plaintiffs did not seek any leave to adduce further evidence after the joinder of such necessary parties. The first appellate Court considered the delay caused in filing of the application and awarded costs to the other side. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity or arbitrariness. Hence, no interference in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 4 is called for. Dismissed. C.A. disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp190907