957.1938.2024.wp IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1938 OF 2024 Sheetal D/o. Sanjay Pawar Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business Agri. & Household R/o. C/o. Sanjay Dagdu Pawar Bhakti Construction, Beed … PETITIONER (Original defendant) ... VERSUS … Bharat Annarao Sonar, Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business & Agri, R/o. Plot No. 10, Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Bhakti Construction Beed. … RESPONDENT (Original plaintiff) Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Anant Devakate, Advocate for the Respondent sole CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : AUGUST 01, 2025 O R A L J U D G M E N T : 1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent - husband has filed a suit for declaration of ownership of suit properties comprising a house property and other landed properties. 2. Although copy of plaint is not filed on record, certified copy of the same is produced for perusal of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is the case of the respondent – husband, who is plaintiff in the said suit that these properties were purchased by him and one of the properties was purchased in joint names of himself and his wife. komal kamble Page 1 2025:BHC-AUG:20803 957.1938.2024.wp 4. In this suit, the petitioner - wife filed an application for dismissal of suit for non-rejoinder of necessary parties contending that children are also necessary parties. This application is rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.01.2024. Learned Trial Court has observed that a suit is a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction and not a suit for partition and separate possession. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the application and order impugned along with the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The suit is a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Decree for declaration and perpetual injunction will bind and operate against a person, who is party to the suit. Rights of children are in no way affected by the outcome of the suit. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, this Court had directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties. The said order is extended till 27.08.2025. 7. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] komal kamble Page 2