1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5396 OF 2010 (Shafiqoddin Karimoddin & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) 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. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. The petitioners have filed suit for injunction against the present Respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect their possession. The stand of Respondents No. 1 to 3 is, the petitioners are encroachers. In that suit, Respondent No. 4 moved an application contending that property is allotted to it. That application has been allowed by the impugned order and Respondent No. 4 has been directed to be added as party defendant No. 4. Shri Joshi, learned counsel contends that no relief is claimed against Respondent No. 4. The mutation entry in their favour has been stayed in appeal by Superintendent of Land Records. In an independent suit filed by Respondent No. 4, the present petitioners filed application for joining them as party and that application was rejected by trial Court. That rejection has been maintained by this Court by observing that as 2 no relief is claimed, the joining of petitioners as defendants in the said suit was not necessary. According to Shri Joshi, learned counsel, same logic is to apply here also. The learned AGP points out that here, the trial Court has exercised discretion in particular manner and there is no jurisdictional error. The perusal of impugned order reveals that the trial Court has considered the facts before it and found it convenient to permit Respondent No. 4 to be added as defendant No. 4. The petitioner as also Respondent No. 4 are claiming the same property and Respondents No. 1 & 2 are defendants No. 1 & 2 in that suit. They are the officers of the State Government. Defendant No. 3 in the suit is Municipal Council. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of the trial Court. In earlier matter, the trial Court has rejected the application and use of discretion by the trial Court in that matter was upheld by this Court. The said order of trial Court or then the order passed by this Court are not produced for consideration. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.