1 35-wp9609-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9609 OF 2010 Chandrakant Krishna Tendulkar .. Petitioner V/s. Vinod Anandji & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Shiva Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Khan Javed Akhtar for the respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He has filed a suit for declaration that he along with third respondent are the joint tenants in respect of the suit premises. The case made out in the plaint is that the first and second respondents are the landlords. 2. The petitioner made an application before the trial Court contending that the respondent No.6 has purchased the property in which the suit premises are situated and therefore the 6th respondent be joined as a party defendant No.1 by substituting the names of 1st and 2nd respondents. The said application was opposed only by the third respondent (third defendant). The trial Court has 2 35-wp9609-10 rejected the application by observing that the application was vague and there were no particulars set out therein. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The application filed before the trial Court was not the one under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application was for substitution. The application was for substitution under Rule 10 of Order XXII of the said Code. The petitioner has not set out in the application before the trial Court and even this petition in what manner the 6th respondent has become the owner/landlord. He has not stated on the basis of which document the 6th respondent has become the owner. Only a vague averment is made that the 6th respondent had called a meeting of the tenants in which one Parasbhai stated that 6th respondent has purchased the property. 4. In the absence of any document showing transfer of right, title and interest by the first and second respondents to the 6th respondent, the prayer for substitution could not have been granted by the trial Court. Therefore, no interference can be made in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open for the applicant to apply under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for adding the sixth respondent 3 35-wp9609-10 as a party defendant. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case for substitution is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed of with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)