( 1 ) wp5821-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5821 OF 2010 Sau. Parvatabai Ramchandra Nikam PETITIONER VERSUS Vimalbai Shantaram Borse & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Rane, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Amol S. Sawant, advocate for the respondent No. 2A. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. The petitioner filed an application as a third party for her impleadment as legal representative of deceased defendant Kasabai in the suit (R.C.S. No. 218/1999) filed by the respondent No. 1 Vimalbai. The respondent No. 1 - (plaintiff) added the respondent No. 2A Smt. Sakhubai as the legal representative of deceased Kasabai. Allegedly, she is step-daughter of deceased defendant Kasabai. 2. The petitioner, as a third party, approached the trial Court with a request that she shall be added as the ( 2 ) wp5821-10 legal representative of deceased Kasabai because she is the legal representative of Kasabai's father i.e. Shankar s/o Pandu Borse. The trial Court rejected the application. 3. It is argued that the substituted legal representative i.e. defendant No. 2A Smt. Sakhubai cannot claim to be the legal representative of deceased Kasabai. It is also argued that the petitioner is the only legal representative of deceased Kasabai through her mother's father. 4. The only question is whether the petitioner can claim substitution as a matter of right. The suit is for perpetual injunction and, therefore, it can be filed against only those persons who are allegedly causing interference in the lawful possession of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff does not want to clamp injunction against any party, he cannot be forced to seek any relief against such a party. The plaintiff is dominus litis. Unless it is found that the suit cannot be finally and effectively adjudicated without joining a party, the impleadment of such a party cannot be ordered against the will of the plaintiff. In the present case, whether the petitioner is legal representative of deceased Kasabai and ( 3 ) wp5821-10 that the respondent No. 2A Smt. Sakhubai has no right to represent the estate of deceased Kasabai, is not the question involved. The only question involved in the suit is regarding obstruction caused in the lawful possession of the plaintiff. In fact, when deceased Kasabai died, the suit ought to have been dismissed because the obstructor was no more in existence. The plaintiff, however, added Smt. Sakhubai probably under the impression that she would obstruct her possession. The application filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the trial Court and no interference in such order dated 5th April, 2010 is called for. However, it is made clear that if any decree is rendered against the added defendant Smt. Sakhubai as heir of deceased Kasabai, then it will not be binding on the rights of the petitioner, nor any finding rendered in the said proceedings of the suit will be binding on her. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5821-10 ( 4 ) wp5821-10