{1} rast2290510.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.22905 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5330 OF 2009 Sayyad Ayaz s/i Sayyed Musa & another Applicants Versus Ramanlal s/o Thakurdas Parikh & others Respondents Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for applicants. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The Review Application is directed against the order passed by this Court on 03.05.2010 in Writ Petition No.5330/2009. 2 The order impugned in the writ petition was in respect of joining the third party applicants, who are claiming interest in the subject matter of the suit, in the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.100/2010 presented by the writ petitioner – original plaintiff. A statement was made by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner – original plaintiff, on instructions, from his client, that the decree of perpetual injunction that is sought in the suit against the defendants, who are impleaded in the suit, would obviously not bind the third party applicants as no relief is claimed against the {2} rast2290510.odt third party applicants and as such their presence in the suit is unwarranted. In paragraph no.5 of the judgment, the contentions raised by the petitioner – original plaintiff are recorded, thus: “Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the suit is presented by the plaintiffs claiming a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It is stated that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 21/1/2002 when the defendants, alongwith their companions tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that by its very nature, the claim raised in the plaint i.e. A restraint order, is a relief in persona and under such circumstances, the third party applicant cannot be considered as persons likely to be affected by the final decree and order that may be passed in the suit”. 3 The Counsel appearing for the respondent in the review application / writ petitioner reiterates the stand that the decree, that would be passed in Regular Civil Suit No.100/2000, would not be binding on the third parties – applicants in the review application. It is also reiterated that no relief is claimed as against the third party applicants – review applicants before this Court. 4 Considering this aspect of the matter, there is no need to cause interference in the order passed by this Court on {3} rast2290510.odt 03.05.2010 in the writ petition. 5 The Review Application stands dismissed with costs. The costs are quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand). The amount of costs be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/rast2290510