1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.633 OF 2011 VASANT ONKAR MURHEKAR & ANOR ..VS.. JANARDHAN HARI MURHEKAR & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A.L. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 9/3/2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 9.12.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 13.8.2008. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the trial court on 13.8.2008 allowing the application filed by the respondents no.5 to 9 for joining them as defendant in the suit. It appears that the plaintiff had filed a suit against his paternal cousin for partition and separate possession of the suit property to the extent of his share. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was proceeded against the original defendant no.3 'without his written statement'. The defendant no.3 was however, permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit the legal heirs of the defendant no.3 moved an application for joining them as party defendant as they also had a share and interest in 2 the suit property. The trial court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 allowed the application filed by the defendant no. 5 to 9. The order was confirmed by the court by rejecting a review application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 9.12.2009. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court did not commit any error in allowing the application filed by the respondent no.5 to 9 and rejecting a review application filed by the petitioner. The trial court rightly considered the fact that the plaintiff had a two fold claim against the defendant no.3 firstly that he was coparcener and secondly that he was a purchaser of the joint family property. The trial court held that the presence of the respondent no.5 to 9 was necessary as the sale deed executed in the name of the defendant no.3 was executed for and on behalf of his family. Since it was the joint family property the trial court held that the respondent no.5 to 9 had a share and interest in the suit property. Since it was a partition suit and since the relief claimed by the plaintiff would have directly affected the respondent no.5 to 9 with a view to have a final and complete adjudication of the points under challenge, in the court permitted, the respondents no.5 to 9 to be joined as parties to the suit. The court held that the presence of the respondents no.5 to 9 3 was necessary for effectively deciding the suit filed by the plaintiff. The orders passed by the trial court appear to be just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE SMP