( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3978 OF 2010 Sumantai d/o. Ganpati Tidke .. Petitioner Versus Pradeep s/o. Prabhakarrao Nagargoje & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.A. Mane h/f. Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATED : 01.12.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The application of the petitioner/original defendant No.5 stated to be a composite application made under Order 1 Rule 10 and under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., that her name be struck off as she was improperly impleaded in the suit and the suit be dismissed for lack of cause of action against her, came to be rejected by order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedpur. This order is impugned in the above ( 2 ) petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no allegations as against the petitioner/ original defendant No.5 who is wrongly alleged to be second wife of the original defendant No.1 in the plaint and that she is not concerned with the family dispute and that her application has been wrongly rejected by the impugned order. 4. Upon perusal of the plaint, however, it is noticed that in para 3 it is specifically pleaded that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 (petitioner herein) are in collusion with each other and are causing trouble to the plaintiff. 5. The impugned order records that defendant No. 5 (petitioner herein) who is alleged to be married to defendant No.1, is necessary party to the suit or not can be decided only after the evidence is led and therefore, it will be improper to strike off the name of defendant No.5 (petitioner herein) or to reject the plaint at this early stage. 6. Prima facie, in view of the allegations in the ( 3 ) plaint, against the petitioner/original defendant No.5, she would be a proper party, even assuming she is not a necessary party to the suit. It appears that certain properties to which the respondent No.1/original plaintiff is laying a claim to, are in the name of the petitioner/original defendant No.5. Moreover, the petitioner has admittedly already filed her written statement in the suit. 7. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/wp3978.10