(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6135 OF 2009 1. Sau. Subhamma w/o. Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household. 2. Shri Shivaprasad s/o. Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service. 3. Nageshwarrao s/o. Anjanaiah Kuntimal, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service. All r/o. Plot No. 129, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Ashish s/o. Tejmal Mugdiya, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No. 177/A, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2. N. Anjanaiah s/o. Narasimhappa Kuntimal, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Retired Govt. Servant, r/o. Plot No. 129, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. (2) 3. The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st August 2009, passed by the learned IIIrd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 212/2009, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit filed by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2, who is husband of (3) petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 and 3. 2. During the course of hearing, the petitioners have placed various documents on record to substantiate their contention that the property, in question, was purchased with the aid of the funds raised by the petitioners. I find that it would not be appropriate for this court to consider all these documents, for the first time, since the learned Judge of the trial court did not have opportunity to consider these documents. 3. Hence, I pass the following order : (i) The petitioners are at liberty to apply afresh before the trial court which shall consider the matter on its own merits after considering the submissions made by the petitioners, so also, the respondent no.1. (ii) The application shall be considered by the trial court, if the same is made within a period of 15 days from today. (iii) The respondent no.1 shall have liberty to file his reply and contest the said application. (iv) The application shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of its presentation. (v) Needless to state that this court has not considered the matter on merits and the petitioners are granted liberty to apply afresh before the trial court since certain documents were produced on record during the (4) course of hearing of this petition. 4. With these aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. 5. Authenticated copy allowed at the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6135