1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3735 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.25370 OF 2006 Darshansingh s/o Indersingh Sodhi Applicant Versus Charanjitsingh s/o Gurubakkshsingh Sabarwal and others Respondents Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 11th September, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge-5, Aurangabad in R.C.A. NO. 388/2005 dated 10.10.2006. 2 The decree passed by the first appellate Court is quoted below: "1 The Appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs. The decree and order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit is partly decreed as under: a) The impugned order revoking the lay out of Vijay Nagar vide the letter of Corporation No.Mun.Corporation/NRV/Lay Out/289/92 dated 23/1/1992 is modified and the Corporation is directed to construct the road in between said 7 plots in the Vijay Nagar lay out as mentioned in the order of Corporation 2 and Vidya Nagar lay out of 4 meters width through the seven adjacent plots in Vijay Nagar lay out. Rest of the layout of these seven plots stands confirmed. b) The Corporation shall compensate these seven plot holders by offering them the same F.S.I. as is permissible to their present plot area and it shall also consider their request of increasing the F.S.I. c) Corporation to allow these plot holders to raise their construction by leaving the margin of 1.5 meters only on the eastern side of their plots and shall consider their request of minimum margin on their western side of the plots. d) The Corporation to withdraw the stay to the permission of Development of the remaining plots in Vijaynagar vide its order AMS/TPS/45185 dated 03/10/1985 and grant permission of construction as per the rules. e) The Corporation to undertake the work of construction of the road immediately and complete it as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months. f) The Corporation to make the access available to the defendant nos2 to 4's plots and the other plot holders, if any, adjacent to the proposed road immediately." 3 It is the contention of applicant that decree passed by the first appellate Court is likely to affect interest of the applicant. It is his contention that the access, which is permissible in terms of the order passed by the first 3 appellate Court, is for the benefit of the applicant. Some of the plot holders, who were likely to be affected by the order, are stated to be before the Court as parties to appeal. So far as applicant is concerned, he had presented an application to the District Court during pendency of appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.388/2005, for his impleadment as party. However, applicant did not press the application and as such, appeal was proceeded in his absence. 4 From the facts disclosed, it does not appear that the applicant has any entitlement to challenge decree under appeal. He cannot be considered to be affected party and as such is not entitled to raise any grievance in these proceedings initiated by plaintiffs and against the original defendants. The applicant did not insist for his impleadment in suit although such an application was presented. The application was not pressed at appropriate stage. The applicant cannot be permitted to make any grievance at this stage. The application is devoid of substance. 5 Hence rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/ca373507