-WP-11544-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11544 OF 2026 Vakas Sagir Dond ..Petitioner Versus Mozakkir Sagir Dond and Ors …Respondents Mr. Uzair Kazi, with Rohit Vaishya, i/b YMK Legal, for the Petitioner. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Uzair Kazi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 5th August 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhiwandi, whereby an Application preferred by he Petitioner-Third Party seeking impleadment in RCS No. 286 of 2020 instituted by Respondent No.1 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, came to be rejected. 3. Respondent No.1 has instituted the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from taking forcible possession of Shop No. 1 in Municipal House No. 88/C, Teen Batti, Kolergate, Bhiwandi (“the suit ship”), asserting that Respondent No.1 is a licencee of the suit shop, which is owned by Respondent No.2, who is his father- in-law. Respondent No.1 claimed that he has been conducting a milk ARS 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.09 20:00:11 +0530 -WP-11544-2026.DOC product business under name and style of “Dond Dairy” in the suit shop since 2006 and, in the year 2020, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 threatened and attempted to forcibly evict Respondent No.1 from the suit shop. 4. After the evidence of third witness for the Plaintiff came to be recorded, the Petitioner who claims to be the real brother of Respondent No.1 filed the Application seeking impleadment in the suit asserting inter alia, that there are disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. In fact, the Petitioner is in the occupation of the suit shop and the Petitioner has been conducting the business therein under the name and style of “Dond Dairy”. Respondent No.1 has instituted a collusive suit against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to cause prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner qua the suit shop. 5. By the impugned order, the learned Judge was persuaded to reject the Application opining that, prima facie, there was no material to show that the Petitioner was in the occupation of the suit shop as a tenant thereof. 6. Mr. Uzair Kazi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned Judge did not properly appreciate the nature of the interest of the Petitioner in the suit shop and the documents which evidence the occupation of the Petitioner over the suit shop. ARS 2/3 -WP-11544-2026.DOC 7. Attention of the Court was invited to Udyam Registration and the notice issued by the office of Food and Drug Administration, on 3rd April 2024, in relation to the alleged violation of the Food Safety Rules. 8. It is trite, addition of a party is not a matter of initial jurisdiction but that of judicial discretion. In the case at hand, the Petitioner, in a sense, lays a rival claim of possession over the suit shop. However, the Application for impleadment is conspicuously silent about the capacity in which the Petitioner allegedly possesses the suit shop. No jural relationship between the Petitioner and the owner of the suit shop is pleaded. The impleadment of the Petitioner as a party-Defendant would embarrass the trial as it would entail a two-pronged adjudication. From this standpoint, the Petitioner neither appears to be a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 9. In the circumstances of the case, the view of the learned Civil Judge that the Petitioner could not place on record material of sterling quality to show possession over the suit shop cannot be said to be unsustainable. In any event, the Petitioner is not remediless. The Petitioner can workout his remedies in an independent proceeding. 10. The Petition thus stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 3/3