1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3628 of 2009 (Dilipraj N. Goenka and another v. Ramesh S. Sule and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri M.G. Sarda, Advocate for R- 13. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 17 th September,, 2009 This petition by the defendants is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, below Exhibit 105 in Special Civil Suit No.40 of 1989, whereby he allowed an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joinder of 12 persons as co-plaintiffs. The suit was initially filed by one Ramesh Shriram Sule as Chief Promoter of the proposed Co-operative Society. An objection about non-joinder of the parties was raised and a prayer for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code was made. The Trial Court had allowed that application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff filed First Appeal 2 No.1083 of 2008 before this Court, which was allowed by the judgment dated 21-11-2008. In para 14 of the said judgment, this Court had observed that : In the instant case I find that the plaint can at the most be said to be instituted in wrong name and therefore for the foregoing reasons the plaint could not have been rejected. This Court had also noted that the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, which has now been allowed, was pending at that time, which, according to the Court, should have been decided earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the judgment of this Court in the First Appeal has been challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. He apprehends that allowing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code for joinder of 12 persons as co-plaintiffs may be projected as ground for opposing the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, stating that nothing now remains in the matter. This apprehension has to be set at rest. Obviously, the Apex Court would be deciding the question of tenability of the suit as it stood when the order, which is under consideration before the Apex Court, was passed. If the Special Leave Petition is allowed, the suit would be dismissed and, therefore, there would 3 be no occasion for joinder of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the question of limitation should have been decided by the learned Trial Judge at the threshold. Now in view of the observations made by this Court in para 14 of First Appeal No.1083 of 2008, this question could not be decided at the threshold and it could be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit itself. In view of this, no case for interference is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl