ORAL JUDGMENT:

1] Heard Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms Aruna Koli, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30th January 2018 made by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panvel below Exhibit-19. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has directed the petitioners – plaintiffs to implead respondent No.3 as a defendant in the suit.

3] Mr. Warunjikar submits that the suit as instituted is essentially for heir-ship. He submits that in such a situation respondent No.3, which is a proprietary concern of Mr.Samrat Patil, is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

He submits that Mr. Samrat Patil has admittedly no relationship whatsoever with either the plaintiffs or the defendants in the suit. He submits that respondent No.3 is a builder and if such a builder is permitted to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, there is possibility of the suit being protracted indefinitely. He submits that the impugned order contains no reasons whatsoever. He submits that in any case the plaint does not seek any relief in relation to decree in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 2012. Therefore, the learned Trial J