1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3026 of 2010 Assen Private Limited ... Petitioner versus MSEDCL & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. B.N.Rai for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 9th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 13 January 2010 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division Thane allowing the application of Respondent nos.3 to 34 made under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for joining them as party defendants to the suit. 3. The petitioner company is an owner of the open land. There are certain hutments in the portion of the land which are occupied by respondent nos.3 to 34. According to respondent nos.3 to 34, they are authorized occupants while according to the petitioner, they are 2 trespassers. Respondent nos.3 to 34 have been granted electricity connection by respondent nos.1 and 2. 4. Petitioner filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit no.406 of 2009 against respondent nos.1 and 2 for a declaration that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were not entitled to grant electricity connection in the petitioner property to the trespassers. In the suit, respondent nos.3 to 34 made an application for joining them as parties. The order alloweing that application is impugned in this petition. 5. The electricity connection have been provided to respondent nos. 3 to 34. Petitioner is seeking a declaration in a suit that the electricity connection given by respondent nos.1 and 2 to respondent nos.3 to 34 is illegal. Consequently, respondent nos.3 to 34 would be affected by a decision in the suit. Therefore, in my view they are proper, if not necessary parties to the suit. The trial court committed no error in allowing the application for joining them as parties to the suit. 6. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code has been signed only by respondent no.3 and not by respondent nos.4 to 34 and therefore respondent nos.4 to 34 could not have been joined as parties. After some time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this contention. In view of this, the contention is disposed of as not pressed. No other point was urged. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)