1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10741 OF 2010 (Babu Deoram Pathare Vs. Adinath Sandip Nalkar and Ors) ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Mr. P.S. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the trial court should have allowed the application to add the petitioner as party respondent in the pending proceeding. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the grounds taken in the petition. On perusal of averments made in the application, it appears that, in the said application the general grounds were raised. The trial court has considered the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and also relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and Ors. 2 Reported in 1996(4) SCC 20 (SC), has concluded that the petitioner is not necessary party. In my view, the possible view has been taken by the trial court. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. Needless to mention that if the petitioner has any other remedy, he can avail the same. (S. S. SHINDE. J.) Date:25.11.2010. rlj/