1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11140 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Gangakhedkar for petitioner/ plaintiff and Advocate Mrs. Thube for Respondent No.4. Nobody appears for other respondents, though served. 2. Challenge is to order passed below Exhibit-12 in R.C.A. NO.101 of 2010 by which trial Court has found present Respondent No.4 a necessary party for adjudication of the controversy. 2. Petitioner states that the Petitioner/ plaintiff has not claimed any relief against Respondent No.4 and the story looked into by trial Court is totally irrelevant. According to learned counsel for Respondent No.4, there is collusion between the petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are original defendants in that suit. 3. Both parties are making reference to litigation which has taken place earlier, and 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. adjudication therein. It appears that some appeal is also pending in the matter. 4. I find that trial Court has considered the relevant material. It has noticed that in R.C.S. No.180 of 2009 (108 of 2009) the present Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have alleged that part of land Gat No.711 in possession of Respondent No.4, in fact, forms part of Gat No.710. In view of this position, the trial Court has found impleadment of Respondent No. 4 essential. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is, therefore, not entertained. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:17/01/2011. ans/11140