1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LPA No.121/2011 in Writ Petition No.360/2011 and CAZ No.805/2011 Natthu Dayaram Kasalkar Vs.Sahadeo Lahanuji Mehar =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM :B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 23/11/2011. Heard Advocate Deshpande appearing for the appellant-petitioner and Advocate Gupta appearing for respondent no.1. Advocate Gupta points out that the order of Civil Court allowing application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the present respondent-plaintiff was assailed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, that Court was not joined as party-respondent. He, therefore, states that LPA is not maintainable. Advocate Deshpande points out that this is not reason given by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the petition and there was no such arguments at this stage. He relies upon provisions under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also CAZ No.805/2011 to seek addition of parties at this stage. 2 He states that present LPA is continuation of the proceedings in writ petition. Similar controversy has been considered by this Court on 22/11/2011 in LPA No. 105/2011 (Zulqurnain Saifi Vs Dhirajlal Sangani and others) and for reasons recorded therein, we are not in a position to accept the contention raised by the petitioner. Hence, we find that the application for addition of parties is misconceived and also present LPA is misconceived. Hence, application as well as LPA are rejected, with liberty to the petitioner to take such steps are open to him in law. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.