mgn 1 app-332 & 333-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.332 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.46 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.25 OF 2011 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 77 OF 2006 IN IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.708 OF 2006 Mukhtar Hussain Mohammedbhai Khimji @ Gowa & Ors. ..APPELLANTS Versus Ali Raza Khimji Gowa s/o.Akbarali Khimji Gowa & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL NO.333 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.45 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.26 OF 2011 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 78 OF 2006 IN IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.707 OF 2006 Mukhtar Hussain Mohammedbhai Khimji @ Gowa & Ors. ..APPELLANTS Versus Ali Raza Khimji Gowa s/o.Akbarali Khimji Gowa & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. V.G. Mehta with Ms. Swati Margi and Mr. C. Abuwala i/b. Dave & Co., for the appellants. Mr. S.Shamim i/b. Shamim & Co., for respondent No.4. mgn 2 app-332 & 333-11.sxw CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. Thursday, 30 h June, 2011 PC: These appeals arise from the interlocutory orders passed in Miscellaneous Petition Nos.77 and 78 of 2010 for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by the Trial Court in Testamentary Petition Nos.707 and 708 of 2006. The Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground of fraud. 2. In the said Miscellaneous Petitions for revocation, Vaseem Gova filed Chamber Summons Nos.25 and 26 of 2001 for impleading him as party-respondent in the revocation petitions. Those Chamber Summonses were allowed by the learned trial Judge by orders dated 7th March, 2011 after noting the consent of the petitioners in the revocation petitions. 3. The present appellants filed Notice of Motion Nos.45 and 46 of 2011 for setting aside the said orders dated 7th March, 2011. By the impugned orders dated 29th April, 2011 the learned Trial Judge has dismissed both the Motions after holding that the petitioners in the Revocation Petitions had given No Objection for making the Chamber Summonses absolute for joining Vaseem Gova as party-respondent and that the present appellants could not have objected to such impleadment. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the orders dated 7th March, 2011 were passed without the appellants getting an opportunity of being heard, the orders were required to be set aside under mgn 3 app-332 & 333-11.sxw Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that it was not open to the learned trial Judge to make any further enquiry as to whether the appellants had any right to oppose the Chamber Summonses or not. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Madhukar Venkatesh Ullal vs. Anita Hermy D’Souza & Ors., 2006 (2) Mh. L.J. 483, in support of the contention that the order passed by the trial Court on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of party is not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, because addition of a party does not decide any controversy and, therefore, an order granting impleadment cannot be said to be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants in rejoinder submits that what the appellants are challenging is not the order of impleadment, but the orders rejecting their Notices of Motion which were filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Having regard to the fact that the Letters of Administration were granted in Testamentary Petition Nos.707 and 708 of 2006 and the revocation petitions are pending before the trial Court and only a party has been added in the revocation petitions with the consent of the petitioners in the revocation petitions, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.