1 wp-3163.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3163 OF 2011 Smt.Sindhu Jagannath Patil & ors. : Petitioners versus Smt. Bhagirathibai Jagannath Patil & ors. : Respondents. Mrs.Anjali Helekar for the Petitioners. Mr.Pravartak Pathak i/by Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 25th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 24/02/2011 by which order the Interim Notice No.2522 of 2004 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be allowed. The said Interim Notice was filed for impleading them as the Plaintiffs in place of the Original Plaintiff Jagannath Bala Patil. The said Jagannath Patil has filed RAE/R Suit No.165/463 of 1987 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. The said suit has been decreed. It appears that after the decree, the said Jagannath Patil died. Triggering off filing of the applications by two set of applicants who claim to be the wives of the said Jagannath Patil. In so far as the bonafide requirement is concerned, it is an undisputed position that the bonafide requirement of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been stated in the said suit. Though there is a mention of the Petitioner No.1 in the deposition of the original Plaintiff in the suit that she was residing with him in Mumbai. In the said deposition, it has also come that the bonafide requirement is of his sons also i.e. Ashok, Sanjay and Vijay. 2 wp-3163.11.sxw 2 The trial Court on the basis that the bonafide requirement is of Ashok and Sanjay and since Bhagirathi is their mother, who also claims to be a legally wedded wife of the said Jagannath Patil, allowed the Interim Notice No. 2522 of 2004 and, the Interim Notice No.2204 of 2005 filed by the Petitioner came to be discharged. The trial Court was of the view that the grant of the application under Rule 5 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only for the limited purpose of carrying on the proceedings and cannot have the effect of conferring any right to the heirship and to the property in question, and therefore, the Court was only to determine out of the two sets of claimants, who could be the heirs of the deceased for prosecuting the said proceedings. 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to assail the impugned order in this Petition relying on the deposition of the said Jagannath Bala Patil. In my view, as observed by the trial Court, the Application is only for the purpose of representing the estate and carrying on the suit and would not confer any right to heirship or to the property in question, which would have to be decided in the independent proceedings which I am informed are already pending. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]