1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3820 OF 2009. ( Sau. Tukdi Jangluji Sontakke -: versus :- Kachru Bhiva Lokhande and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2009. Heard Shri K.V. Thomas, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri A.G. Ghumde, learned counsel for respondent no.1/original plaintiff and Shri P.A. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6. Respondent no.2 has already expired and is joined through his legal heirs, who are respondent nos. 3 to 5 before this Court. Respondent no.1 has filed a suit for partition and in it, has joined respondent nos. 3 to 6 as party defendants. Contention of petitioner is that she also is entitled to some property which is included in that suit erroneously. Her contention is she is daughter of deceased Mahadeo, and father of present respondent no.3 to 6 by name Bhiwa, was her brother. She is showing her independent right to some property. Plaintiff [respondent no.1] did not object to application moved by her for impleading her as party in the suit. The application was 2 opposed by present respondent nos. 3 to 6, who claimed that entire property was ancestral one and present petitioner had no right to it. Shri Thomas, learned counsel contends that nature of property is not very relevant at this stage, and as the effort of petitioner/applicant was to show that entire property was not ancestral, application ought to have been allowed. He banks on the fact that respondent no.1 / plaintiff did not oppose that application. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel on the other hand contends that application as filed before trial Court or petition as filed before this court is vague and misconceived. According to him unless and until date of death of Mahadeo is placed on record, alleged entitlement of present petitioner cannot be even prima facie considered. He therefore, argues that application was misconceived and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. It is apparent that, merits of the submission need not be gone into at this stage, and when plaintiff did not oppose such application, it would be in the interest of parties to have all contentions in relation to property resolved in very same matter. The objection raised by Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel can be looked into by the trial court at appropriate stage. Thus keeping said objection open, application at Exh.27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2008 is allowed. The present petitioner is allowed to impleaded as defendant no.5 in that suit. The suit as filed is of the year 2008 and hence added defendant/present petitioner to file her written statement in that suit by 15.12.2009 with copies thereof for 3 plaintiff and also other defendants. After the written statement is filed trial Court to proceed further in accordance with the law. Writ Petition is thus allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.