1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6275 OF 2008 Baliram Bhikaji Parab & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Ragho zilu Parab & anr. ...Respondents Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioners Ms Aruna Ghodge for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. In an appeal preferred by the petitioners an application was made for impleading the 2nd respondent as a party to the original suit filed by the 1st petitioner. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the learned District Judge. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial court while deciding the suit filed by the 1st petitioner and cross suit filed by the 1st respondent. He submitted that looking the said findings, the 2nd respondent will be a proper party. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The suit was decided on 30th March 2007. The Appeal was immediately preferred by the petitioner. The application on which the impugned order has been passed was filed on 17th July 2008. Both the suits i.e. The suit filed by the 1st petitioner and the suit filed by the 1st respondent were tried together. The 2nd respondent deposed as a witness in the suit filed by the 2 1st respondent. Therefore, the learned District Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the application was moved by the petitioner belatedly. Moreover, an application for impleadment was made by the 2nd respondent himself in the same Appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Court. The said order has been confirmed by this Court by order dated 3rd February 2010 in Writ Petition no.7081 of 2010. 4 Hence, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected. JUDGE