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/7024/2009 DHARAMSINGH V/S PRATAPSINGH 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Petitioners were not parties to the proceedings pending in the trial Court. It is not in dispute that RCS No.50 of 2004 is filed on 7.8.2004 by respondents 1 to 7 in the Civil Court at Shahada. Copy of the suit is on record at Exhibit “A”. The suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction. 3. Indisputably, the petitioners are not joined in the suit, either as plaintiffs or defendants. They had filed an application in the trial court on 21.6.2008 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. Copy of the same is at Exhibit “C”. I have gone through the said application. Grievance raised is that the plaintiffs alone are not the owners of the property and that the petitioners are also owners or having interest in the subject matter and that the plaintiffs have mischievously not joined the petitioners to the said proceeding and shown their names as legal heirs. Petitioners have contended that since they are having legal right in the property or subject matter of the suit they should be directed to be arrayed as plaintiffs along with the original plaintiffs 1 to 7. This application was rejected by the trial Court and hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. According to him, the order impugned is illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have gone through submissions of 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 respective counsel. In my view rejection of application for impleadment does not decide the rights of the parties. The order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Original plaintiffs are dominous litis i.e. master of their plaint. They have decided not to join the petitioners as parties to the suit. I see no perversity or illegality in the order. 6. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. 7. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. Dt.5.2.2010 (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) akl