- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1935 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦ Mr.V.A.Shastry for the ¦ Petitioners. ¦ Mr.G.S.Godbole for the ¦ Respondent No.12. ¦ ¦ CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA , J. ¦ DATED: 26TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C.: The Petitioner has challenge the impugned order dated 6-7-2006, whereby the composite application under Order I Rule X read with Order VI Rule XVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was rejected. The Petitioner/Plaintiff moved this application, which according to him is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and as the proposed Defendant No.12 acquired the development right through the Defendant No.11 in spite of the fact - 2 - that the Defendants are quite aware of the Plaintiff’s suit in respect of the property. 2. This application was moved after having knowledge of involvement of proposed Defendant No.12, as he started fencing the entire property. The Petitioner/Plaitiffs has also filed police complaint. 3. Issues are not even yet framed. In view of this I see there is no reason not to grant this application. 4. As in view of the amendment it is now necessary to add the proposed Defendant No.12 as a party, therefore, this composite application in the facts and circumstances needs to be allowed. 5. Application is accordingly allowed and also the petition. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)