-: 1 :- wp-2039/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2010 Shree Mahalunge Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanstha Mydt. Mahalunge. ..Petitioner. Versus Nanasaheb B. patil & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Rahul P. Walwekar for the petitioners. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 24, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In S.C.C. Case No. 611 of 2009, Respondent no.1 is the disputant and the petitioner is original defendant no.1. Respondent no.1 by filing aforesaid case, challenged the resolution of the petitioner whereby the petitioner had granted membership to 147 persons. In this case by filing written statement the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the dispute on the ground that said 147 persons who have been granted membership, are not impleaded in the said dispute. Respondent no.1 then filed an application for impleadment of these 147 persons, who were enrolled as members. This application was allowed by the Co­operative Court. Appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Co­operative Court was srp -: 2 :- wp-2039/10 dismissed by the Appellate Court and therefore the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner itself initially raised objection that respondent no.1 ought to have impleaded said 147 persons. In pursuance of this objection, respondent no.1 filed application and same was allowed by the Co­operative Court. Now, the petitioners cannot make any grievance that the impleadment is illegal. In my view, said 147 persons are necessary parties inasmuch as respondent no.1 sought relief of declaration that the membership of these 147 persons is illegal. The petitioner is not prejudiced by the order allowing amendment application. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the same in extra­ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)