1 wp 9879.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9879 OF 2011 Gorakh Machindra More .. Petitioner Versus Mohan Anandrao Deshmukh and others .. Respondents Shri F. R. Tandale, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent N. 1 has filed suit against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for perpetual injunction. The present petitioner filed an application U/O 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Tandle, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends the rights of the petitioner are involved. The said plot through which the road is been claimed by the 2 wp 9879.11 respondent No. 1 is a open space meant for the enjoyment of all the plot holders and the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. The learned counsel contends that taking into account the nature of the suit, the petitioners interest is been involved and rights of all the plot holders would be affected by any decree that is passed in the suit. In such circumstances, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the said suit. The addition of the petitioner would assist the court in coming to just conclusion. 3. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) reads as under : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORDER I 1. ............. 2. ............. 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff (1) ................. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit, be added. 3 wp 9879.11 Perusal of the said provision it is manifest that the Court has discretion to add a person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the present case, the relief is claimed by the plaintiff against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The suit is for reliefs against the respondents therein. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. Even otherwise if any decree is passed in the said suit the same could not be binding on the petitioner as he is not party to the suit. The petitioner always has liberty to initiate such other proceedings as is permissible in law to protect its right. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Authentic copy be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11