:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3750 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3750 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3750 OF 2008 Suchet S. Oswal and Another ..Petitioners V/s Kerba Hanumanth Lonkar & Another ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioners CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. The application of the petitioners, who are 3rd parties, to be added as party-defendants in the suit, has been rejected by the impugned order, hence this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they had entered into a development agreement with the respondent No.1/plaintiff by a registered agreement dated 25th April 2006 and they have paid certain amounts to the respondent No.1, and an irrevocable power of attorney is also executed in their favour by respondent No.1. The suit which is filed by the respondent No.1 against the defendants therein, was :2: for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration in respect of ownership of the suit property. 3. Undisputedly the suit is part-heard and there is a direction by this Court whereby the suit is made time bound for hearing and final disposal. The impugned order is passed in January 2008, whereas the petition is filed on 7-4-2008.The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has apprehension that in the event the suit is not contested properly their rights will be affected. According to him, the petitioners are a necessary and proper party and the petitioners have taken steps and acted in pursuance of the agreement and that their rights would be affected if the suit is not contested properly and irreparable loss would be caused to them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of M/s Chitralekha Builders V. M/s Chitralekha Builders V. M/s Chitralekha Builders V. GIC GIC GIC Employees Sonal Vihar Co-op.Hsg. Society Ltd. Employees Sonal Vihar Co-op.Hsg. Society Ltd. Employees Sonal Vihar Co-op.Hsg. Society Ltd. reported in 2005(4) ALL MR 584. Relying upon the aforesaid decision the learned Counsel argued that the object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) was to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and therefore the petitioners are required to be impleaded as party :3: defendants in the suit. 3. I have perused the impugned order and the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In my view, the trial Court has considered the case of the petitioners and observed that the petitioners have to independently establish their own rights. Order 10 Rule 2 also specifies that necessary party is one whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit. The presence of the petitioners is not necessary for effectual disposal of the suit. The decision cited is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 4. In my view, the petitioners are not a necessary and proper parties to the suit and the impugned order cannot be faulted and no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. ( A.A.SAYED, J.) A.A.SAYED, J.) A.A.SAYED, J.)