: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2005 NO.2054 OF 2005 NO.2054 OF 2005 Jayant Atmaram Marathe ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Raj Mayur Dhwaji Singhji Saheb & 2 Ors. ... Respondents Mr.D.M. Gupte for Petitioner Mr.M.S. Khadilkar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 22, 2005 AUGUST 22, 2005 AUGUST 22, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this Petition, the Petitioner who was the plaintiff before the trial Court, challenged the order dated 1.3.2005 directing the Plaintiff to implead Respondent No.3 in the array of the defendants. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 is not a necessary or a proper party in his suit for declaration that he is the tenant of the suit premises. It is contended that assuming the suit premises have been purchased by Respondent No.3, he should have filed a separate suit for agitating any claim that he may have against the Petitioner. 2. The trial Court has considered these submissions made before it and has concluded, and in my view : 2 : rightly, that for the proper determination and final adjudication of the suit, it would be necessary to add Respondent No.3 as a party defendant. There is a sale deed which indicates that Respondent No.3 has bought over the suit premises from Respondent No.1 on 27.10.2004. 3. In such circumstances, I am of view that there is no interference called for. Petition rejected.