( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3890 OF 2009 Ku. Kavita d/o Dhanraj Jagtap and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Dhanraj s/o Dagadu Jagtap Since deceased, by L.Rs. & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.P. Gude, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.P. Dhumal, advocate holding for Mr. U.H. Bhogale, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. A.D. Wange, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... [CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [DATE : 9th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This writ petition questions the order dated 21-06-2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ambajogai below Exhibit-124-B, so also questions the order dated ( 2 ) 14-08-2007, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ambajogai below Exh-125 and Exh-127 in Regular Civil Suit No. 224/2000. 3. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They have filed suit (R.C.S. No. 224/2000) for partition and separate possession against the present respondents who are original defendants. When the Suit was pending the present petitioners/original plaintiffs filed a purshis (Exh-124-B), praying for withdrawal of the suit. The present respondent No. 4/defendant No. 4 filed an application (Exh-127) for transposition as plaintiff. 4. The learned Civil Judge, by passing the impugned order, has taken into consideration the fact that this being a suit for partition and separate possession, and each and every party would be in a position of plaintiff, the original defendant No. 4, who had sought to be transposed as plaintiff, would have right to continue with the lis. ( 3 ) 5. I do not find any error committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. As such, the writ petition being de-void of merit, is dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3890-09