1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8236 OF 2009 Sanjay s/o Kalyanrao Kadam, Age 36 years, Occ. Pujari, R/o Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The President of Shri Tuljabhavani Temple, Trust, Tuljapur or District Collector, Osmanabad. 2. The Manager (Administration), Shri Tuljabhavani Temple, Trust, Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 3. The Assistant Manager (Administration), Shri Tuljabhavani Temple, Trust, Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.S. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondents waives service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 . In a patent dishonest manner, in the discharge of 2 liability to the deity, the plaintiff (respondent herein), a cheque was issued by the writ petitioner Sanjayu Kalyanrao Kadam. He knew that it was signed by his father in order to discharge the liability. When it was so presented to the plaintiff (respondent herein), on presentation, as was expected, the cheque was dishonoured. Consequently, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated and withdrawn. 3. The respondent/plaintiff, moved Special Civil Suit No. 61/2005 before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, seeking recovery against the petitioner herein. An application below Exh.14, dated 16.8.2008 in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved, seeking amendment and impleadment of petitioner’s father as defendant No.2 as the cheque in question was from the account of the father of the present petitioner. 4. The learned Judge allowed the application and necessary amendment is carried by virtue of order dated 16.8.2008. It is not an added defendant, father of the petitioner, who is before this Court, it is the sole petitioner (defendant) who has challenged the order. In the fact situation narrated hereinbefore, the present petitioner has nothing to gain or lose out of such impleadment of defendant No.2. Change of cause of action will be taken care by the learned Judge seized with the matter including point of limitation. 3 Writ Petition lacks merits. Hence, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE