926-wp-5997-2026.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5997 OF 2026 Rajesh Vasantrao Joshi VERSUS Rahull Dyandeo Sukte And Ors ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Murkute J.M. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sunny S. Khivansara (through V.C.) ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 17, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 15.04.2026 passed below Exhibit-47 by Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.346 of 2025, whereby petitioner’s application seeking impleadment as defendant came to be rejected. 2. Respondent no.1 instituted Special Civil Suit No.346 of 2025 seeking relief of declaration that sale deeds of defendants are illegal, null and void and also relief of perpetual injunction against them. The respondent/plaintiff claims that he purchased suit property under registered sale deed from petitioner. The copy of sale deed is placed on record. The petitioner sought impleadment in suit on the ground that he is original owner of property and plaintiff has fraudulently obtained sale deed which does not create title in his favour in respect of suit property. 2026:BHC-AUG:23762 926-wp-5997-2026.odt (2) 3. Perusal of pleadings in suit shows that plaintiff claims himself to be owner on the basis of registered sale deed. The petitioner has not challenged said sale deed by filing any independent suit. As long as sale deed in favour of plaintiff exist, he has right to protect his interest over suit property on the basis of title. If petitioner wants to challenge validity of sale deed of respondent/plaintiff, he can file independent suit seeking declaration against sale deed. However, looking to nature of pleadings and reliefs claimed against defendant in suit, impleadment of plaintiff was absolutely uncalled for. The Trial Court has rightly observed that plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to implead petitioner as defendant in suit when he is not seeking any relief. If petitioner has independent right over suit property, he can resort to appropriate remedy as permissible under law without impeded by impugned order. 4. In that view of matter, writ petition stands rejected. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//