(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6406 OF 2010 Mahadev s/o. Krishna Borade, .. Petitioner Age : 65 years, (Original applicant/ Occupation : Agriculture, Proposed Plaintiff R/o. at & post Katgaon, no.3. Taluka & District : Latur. versus 1. Kusumbai w/o. Balasaheb Borade, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Household. 2. Govind s/o. Balasaheb Borade, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Gopal s/o. Balasaheb Borade, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All R/o. Katgaon, Taluka & District : Latur. 4. Rukminibai w/o. Baburao Ingole, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Koshtgaon, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. (2) 5. Lalasaheb s/o. Mahadev Borade, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Parvatibai w/o. Mahadev Borade, .. Respondents Age : 59 years, (Nos.1 to 4 - Original Occupation : Agriculture & Household. defendants & Both R/o. Katgaon, Nos.5 & 6 - Original Taluka & District : Latur. plaintiff nos.1 & 2) ....................... Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. S.P. Urgunde, for respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. (3) 3. Service of notice upon Rule to respondent nos.5 and 6 is dispensed with as they are original plaintiffs and their interest is being looked after by the present petitioner as they are authorized power of attorney holder before the trial court. 4. During the course of arguments, Adv. Dhananjay Deshpande, for the petitioner, stated that only effort of the petitioner is to get himself impleaded as plaintiff in the suit and the petitioner does not want to lead any evidence either oral or documentary if that request is granted. 5. Adv. Mr. Urgunde, for respondent nos.1 to 4, pointed out that the suit was already at the stage of final arguments in the month of September 2007 and after obtaining two adjournments for advancing final arguments, on 1-10-2007, application at Exhibit 79 came to be filed. He states that if the petitioner is not going to lead any oral or documentary evidence, he has no objection if petitioner is allowed to come on record in the array of plaintiffs. 6. In view of unequivocal statement made by the petitioner, it is apparent that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants by permitting him to come on record (4) as plaintiff no.3. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 9th June 2010, passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 79 in Regular Civil Suit No. 430/2003, is quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit 79 is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to come on record as plaintiff no.3. Necessary amendment be carried out by 3rd March 2011. (ii) The trial court shall proceed further to hear the final arguments i.e. from the stage at which application at Exhibit 79 came to be filed before it on 1-10-2007 and after hearing parties, pronounce judgment as early as possible and in any case, by 30th April 2011. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6406