FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/2804/2009 ARJUN V/S RAMCHANDRA With CA/10311/2009 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge I, Hingoli on 23.3.2009 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.34 of 2008 dismissing the same. 3. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. Petitioner is original defendant No.1 in RCS No.84 of 2007 filed by respondent - plaintiff in the court of learned Civil Judge S.D. Hingoli. In the suit, application for temporary injunction Exhibit 29 was filed by defendant No.1 and Exhibit 5 by the plaintiff. Both applications were heard together and by a common order dt. 2.12.2008 application Exhibit 5 was allowed and application Exhibit 29 came to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that two appeals were filed challenging the said order. However, he has annexed only one judgment i.e. in Misc. Civil Appeal No.34 of 2008 to the petition at Exhibit "B". This appeal has been filed against only one exhibit either Exhibit 5 or Exhibit 29. This appeal has been dismissed by the first appellate Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent points out that in the appeal before appellate Court all FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS defendants were joined as party but the present writ petition is filed by only defendant No.1. According to him, for non joinder of necessary parties, present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Apart from the grievance raised by learned counsel for respondent, I have considered the writ petition on merits. I have perused the order passed below Exhibits 5 and 29. I have also perused the order of the first appellate Court. 8. In my view, no case for interference in the impugned order by this Court is established This petition is devoid of any substance. 9. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.No order as to costs. 10. In view of the disposal of writ petition itself, civil application does not survive and accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Dt.11.3.2010 (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) akl