1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 843 OF 2010 (Sheikh Mohammed s/o Sheikh Abdul Salam vs. Wahid Khan s/o Chand Khan & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 23, 2010. Heard Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Charpe, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1 (defendant sole) in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2008 has chosen not to appear, though he is served with notice for final disposal. Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff pointed out that on the basis of title Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2008 has been filed by him against Respondent No. 1 for declaration of title and for removal of encroachment. In that suit when part of the evidence was recorded, present Respondent No.2 moved application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code, seeking his impleadment as defendant. The application was opposed and the trial Court by a short order only noticed that as applicant before it has some legal interest in the subject matter of suit, the application deserves to be allowed. The petitioner then sought review and that application has 2 also been rejected on 01.12.2009. According to Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel, status of Respondent No.2 is at the most as that of witness and he does not stand to loose or gain anything in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2008. Shri Charpe, learned counsel for respondent No.2 points out that Respondent No.2 has sold the property, in relation to which suit is filed, to the petitioner but as entire area could not be placed in possession of the petitioner – plaintiff, full consideration is to be received by Respondent No.2. In these circumstances, according to him, pointing out these developments, the application was moved. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar vs. Farida Khatoon, reported at 2005 (3) Mh. L.J. 330, particularly para 12 to argue that no detailed inquiry at this stage is necessary and as the trial Court has rightly found interest, permission given to Respondent No. 2 to join as defendant No.2 needs to be maintained. I have perused the judgment on which reliance has been placed. The facts above clearly show that adjudication in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2008 either way does not in any way affect the legal status and right of Respondent No.2. His stand as taken before trial Court shows that his only effort is to help Respondent No. 1 i.e. sole defendant in that suit. I am, therefore, of the opinion that impugned order passed on 3 19.06.2009 below Exh. 33 is unsustainable. Similarly, the order dated 01.12.2009 passed thereafter below Exh. 48 (review application) also cannot sustain. Both the orders are, therefore, quashed and set aside. The application filed by Respondent No. 2 vide Exh. 33 in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 2008 is rejected. Writ Petition is disposed of by issuing rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.