:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8497 OF 2007 Mr. Jamal Ahmad Khan ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Shri Ramesh Dharmaji Kasavalekar and anr. ..Respondents Mr. D.K. Ghaisas for petitioner. Mr. C.M. Lokesh i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Ghaisas the learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2007. In the said suit the present respondent no.1 filed an application under Order - I Rule 10, praying for to be impleaded as an additional defendant and he stated in the said application that Plot No. 155 admeasuring about 664 sq.mtrs. was earlier allotted to him and the same was the suit plot. The allotment was made by CIDCO itself and, therefore, he was :2: required to be heard while the suit was being considered for the relief under Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. 2. By the impugned order dated 24/9/2007 the learned Civil Judge, J.D. at Uran noted that the respondent no.1 being an interested person in the suit plot was required to be impleaded as a necessary party and as he had himself appeared in the suit, suit summons were dispensed with. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent no.1 was originally allotted the suit plot and if subsequently the said allotment was cancelled as alleged, it is for the trial court to examine his title over the suit plot during the trial of the suit. 4. Hence, no fault could be found with the impugned order while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected summarily. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)