1 wp 4259.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4259/2022 (Ramji V Sou. Mala and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. J. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for resp. nos.7 and 8. CORAM : M.W. Chandwani , J. DATE : 17-02-2026. Heard. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06-01-2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.4, Pusad in R.C.S. No.20/2021, permitting the plaintiffs i.e. respondent nos.1 to 3 in present petition to withdraw the said suit and it has been disposed of as withdrawn. 3. The petitioner filed an application for adding him as a party defendant in the said suit and that application was pending when respondent nos.1 to 3 withdrew the suit. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the application for addition of petitioner as a party defendant was pending, the trial Court should not have allowed withdrawal of the suit. 4. The suit was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 i.e. the sisters, against the respondent nos. 4 to 6 i.e. their brothers for partition and possession of the suit property. The petitioner is claiming to have an agreement and claimed part of the suit property allegedly to have been executed by respondent nos.4 to 6 i.e. the brothers in his favour. The petitioner has also filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.65/2009 for 2 wp 4259.22.odt specific performance of contract against respondent nos. 4 to 6, which is pending before the competent Court. 5. The trial Court has allowed respondent nos.1 to 3 to withdraw the suit. Further, since the petitioner was seeking to be added as a party defendant in the suit filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 and the suit is withdrawn by the party who had filed it, therefore, the claim of the petitioner in the partition suit does not survive. There is no need for the trial Court to decide the application of the petitioner to be added as a party defendant. The reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Satish s/o Shivchand Bhandari vs Maroti s/o Govindrao Chandel and others, reported in 2021(7) ALL MR 360, is misplaced and is distinguished because in that case in the application of one of the defendants seeking to be transposed as a plaintiff was pending before the trial Court. In that scenario, this Court was of the opinion that the said application was required to be decided by the trial Court even if the plaintiffs’ application of withdrawal of suit was decided before that deciding the application of transposition and the suit was withdrawn. But in the present case, the facts are different. The petitioner wanted to be added as a defendant and was not already a party to the suit. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. 6. Needless to mention that the petitioner can take appropriate steps in the suit filed by him. (M.W. Chandwani , J. ) Deshmukh