1 wp-10639-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10639 OF 2011 Dharadhar Developers Private Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Chetan Kaluram Nikam & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Nachiket Khaladkar for the Petitioners CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 27-9-2011, passed by the Learned District Judge, Pune, by which Order, the Application Exhibit-60 for impleadment filed by the Petitioner herein in Misc Civil Appeal No.168 of 2007 came to be rejected. 2 The Petitioner is the Original Defendant No.9 who has been impleaded after the Trial Court passed the Order refusing temporary injunction to the Plaintiffs who are the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 to the above Petition. The Respondent Nos.1 to 8 are the original Plaintiffs who have filed Misc Civil Appeal No.168 of 2007 against the Order of the Trial Court rejecting the temporary injunction application filed by them, which Appeal is pending. After the impleadment of the present Petitioner as Defendant No.9, a separate application for injunction was filed against it. The said application was also rejected by the Trial Court resulting in the Plaintiffs filing Misc Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2010. 2 wp-10639-11.sxw 3 It appears from the reading of the impugned Order that the parties have agreed that both the Appeals be heard together. The petitioner herein i.e. the Defendant No.9 to the suit has been impleaded in view of the subsequent events that have transpired in as much as the Respondent Nos.9 to 16 have entered into a Development Agreement with the Petitioner i.e. the Defendant No.9. Hence the second Appeal i.e. Misc Civil Appeal No.86 of 2010 is directed against him. The Application of the Petitioner for impeadment in Misc Civil Appeal No.168 of 2007 has been rejected on the ground that both the appeals i.e. Misc Civil Appeal No.168 of 2007 and Misc Civil Appeal No.86 of 2010, are to be heard simultaneously. If that be so, the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with as the Petitioner i.e. the Defendant No.9 would be entitled to heard at the hearing of the said Appeals which will be done simultaneously. The Trial Court is a way right as the impleadment of the present Petitioner i.e. the Defendant No.9 would unnecessary prolong the adjudication of the said Appeals. 4 In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to hear both the Appeals together and simultaneously. [R.M.SAVANT, J]