1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7724 OF 2007 Maruti Babu Chavan ..Petitioner V/s. Anusaya Babu Chavan & ors. ..Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure, advocate, for petitioner Mr.Anilkumar Patil, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . The present petitioner is impugning an order passed by the Trial Court impleading the respondent No.7 as a party-defendant to the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2005. The suit is for partition. Petitioner is defendant No.1 thereto. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 have allegedly assigned their share insofar as house property is concerned. Even, the plaintiff has joined that transaction. The Trial Court has allowed the application for Joinder on the basis of its reasoning in paragraph 8. Mr.Umesh Mankapure would urge that the 2 respondent No.7, if added as a defendant would claim equities and thereby create obstacles in execution of the decree for partition. 2. I do not see any basis for this apprehension in as much as the power under Order 22, Rule 10 has been exercised in this case. The Court has observed that the original plaintiff has not objected to the joinder. She has disposed of her share in the house property but there are agricultural lands involved in the suit as well. On the ground that the respondent No.7, if not added would institute his own proceedings and multiple litigation is likely to delay the process of execution of a partition decree, is the base of the reasoning. In the peculiar facts of this case and when the respondent No.7 is the son of the defendant No.2 and would in any event, succeed or be entitled otherwise to his father's share as well, his joinder as a defendant cannot be said to be improper, arbitrary or capricious exercise of the discretionary power and it does not suffer from any infirmity much less one warranting interference 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. 3. The order passed by the Trial Court as well as this Court does not preclude the petitioner/original defendant No.1 from raising appropriate pleas with regard to the illegality and validity of the transaction. All such pleas are kept open. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)