1 wp6387.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 6387 of 2010 M/s. A.S.K. Corporation ... Petitioner v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. ... Respondents Miss Prachi Khandke i/b. Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b. M/s. M.P.Vashi & associates. Mr. M.M. Malvankar i/b. R.A. Malandkar for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. O.R. Tiwari for respondent no. 3. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 24, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st July, 2010 vide which the application filed by the respondent no. 3 in a suit filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff is allowed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that suit of the plaintiff is for a simplicitor injunction restraining the respondent Corporation from demolishing the compound wall without following due process of law. It 2 wp6387.10.sxw is, therefore, submitted that respondent no. 3 is not at all a necessary party and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 3. The learned trial Judge while allowing the application has found that there is already a suit filed by the respondent no.3 against the present petitioner with respect to the same property. In that view of the matter, learned trial Court has found that the application filed by the respondent no. 3 deserves to be allowed. 4. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that respondent no. 3 is not even a proper party. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court under Order 10 Rule 1 of CPC. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)