1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5214/2008 Chandrahas R. Deshpande and others vs. Sudhakar T. Deshpande and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 11 th FEBRUARY , 2009 Heard Shri Ukey, Advocate, for the petitioners and Shri Sunil Manohar, Advocate, for respondents. The petitioners challege the order of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, dated 17/9/08 passed in R.C.S. No. 825/2007, which reads thus- “Order Heard in view of application of plaintiffs vide Ex.25, application is allowed. Name of defendant no.8 be deleted from suit being proprietor of Swastik Enterprises. Sd/- 17/9/08 2 Order 1. Application Exh.21 and 46 are hereby allowed. 2. Defendant No. 8 is hereby deleted from the suit on account of misjoinder of party. Sd/- 17/9/08” Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the order of this Court dated 10th December, 2008, to the effect that, “meanwhile the respondents in the present petition shall not create any third party interest in the suit property', may be recalled as the same is not the subject matter of the present petition. He also states that he has no objection if both the orders are set aside, the consequence of which shall be the defendant no. 8 would be continued to be in the fray of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the relevant direction was issued by this Court considering the fact that the respondent no.8 was not party to the suit as his name was deleted from the array of the defendants and therefore, this interim direction 3 was given. According to him, once he again becomes defendant, he would be bound by the interim orders, which are passed in the suit later. In these circumstances, this petition can be disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders with the obvious consequences that the defendant no.8 shall remain as party defendant in the suit and bound by the interim orders, if any. in the suit. The trial Court shall decide the amendment application of the petitioners afresh in the light of the above circumstances. Liberty to the parties to lead evidence on the issue of amendment, if necessary. Petition stands disposed of. As the petition is disposed of, the interim order in this petition shall stand vacated. JUDGE Rvjalit