1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3346 OF 2010 (Anil Harishchandra Vyas & Ors. vs. Gopal Premkumar Gupta & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 29, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are purchasers from the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 2008. Respondent No. 1 has filed that suit for specific performance of agreement of sale on 22.07.2005. He has contended that after institution of suit, he got knowledge of sale deed dated 12.06.2007 by which the present petitioners purchased the suit property and therefore, he moved an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. That application has been allowed by the trial Court. According to Shri Patil, learned counsel, the petitioners are not party to allege agreement dated 22.07.2005 and in any case they are protected because of the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) of Specific Relief Act. He is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath 2 Mishra, reported at (1995) 3 SCC 147. He has also invited attention to reply filed by the original defendants in that suit opposing the application and inter alia pointing out that the plaintiff never pleaded that these petitioners had notice of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants. His contention is in spite of this objection, the trial Court has allowed the addition and thus right of the petitioners to press Section 19(1) (b) of Specific Relief Act, is denied to them. The perusal of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly shows that there the Civil Suit was instituted in 1989 for specific performance of a contract dated 22.09.1986 and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application to implead the party defendants on the ground that collusive decree was obtained in Civil Suit No. 393 of 1990. Thus, the events there have taken place after the institution of the suit. The judgment, therefore, has no application in the present facts. However, it is not necessary for this Court to conclude the controversy either way as present petitioners were not party before the trial Court when the impugned order dated 19.12.2009 came to be passed. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that any legal rights available to them are foreclosed behind their back and without their knowledge. All defences are open to the petitioners and in present matter as I find that the sale deed was prior to institution of suit, the discretion exercised by the trial 3 Court cannot be faulted with. Hence, with liberty to raise all defences before the trial Court, present writ petition is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.