(1) WP 9430.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9430 OF 2010 Smt. Sharda Nandkishor Sakla PETITIONER VERSUS Arun S/o Mankchand Surana and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the Respondent no.1 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. The Petition is filed by a third party whose application for impleadment came to be rejected by the trial Court. 2. The suit is filed by the respondent no.1 bearing Special Civil Suit no. 494 of 1998 renumbered as Regular Civil Suit no. 547 of 2000. The contention of the respondent no.1 before the trial Court is that he is owner of the land bearing survey no.419/A-1 and B-1 admeasuring 0.25 H as described in the claim clause. He alleged that the Municipal Council, Rahuri encroached over a part of his land and thereafter let out the properties to some of the tenants including the defendant no.4-Manik Salve. The suit is for (2) WP 9430.2010 removal of encroachment and demolition of structure, if any, made by the encroachers. The allegation of the respondent no.1(plaintiff) is that the Municipal Council, Rahuri constructed the shops and leased out the same to the traders. The petitioner claims to have obtained the shop premises from the defendant no.4 Manik Salve i.e. the original lessee of the Municipal Council. Needless to say the petitioner approached the trial Court for impleadment on the ground that he is the sub-lessee of the lessor who has obtained a shop from the Municipal Council. There is no direct privity of contract between the Municipal Council and the petitioner or for that matter the respondent no.1. 3. It is well settled that a stranger, who has no right available by way of lease and particularly a valid lease, cannot claim any independent status or right. The petitioner will be bound by the decree that may be rendered against the original lessor i.e. Manik Salve. It is argued that he has stepped in the shoes of the defendant no.4-Manik Salve. That does not give him a separate right to get impleaded in the suit. (3) WP 9430.2010 4. It is well settled that a party can be added in the array of defendants only when presence of such a party is found essential for final and effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The plaintiff is dominus litus. It is obvious that the petitioner could not claim impleadment against the will of the plaintiff i.e. the respondent no.1 nor his presence is necessary before the trial Court for final adjudication of the disputed questions such as ownership of the property and the alleged encroachment over the land of the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) by the Municipal Council. Needless to say that the petitioner claims to be in possession from the alleged lessee of the lessor who is the alleged encroacher. 5. Under these circumstances, rejection of the application of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. No interference is called for in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. No costs. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp