1 ca15681-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15681/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6394/2009 ... Bandu Ambadas Arekar V/s Gulabroa Himmatrao Shinde & Ors. ... Shri M.M.Joshi,Adv.for applicant Shri P.V.Barde,Adv.for R.1. Shri R.V.Ghuge,Adv.for R.2. .... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE : 20/12/2010. 1] This Civil Application is filed by the applicant / original respondent no.4 for being transposed as petitioner in the above Writ Petition. It is noticed that the petition has so far not been admitted. 2] The impugned order in the petition is a common order dated 8/5/2009, by which order, four applications for condonation of 2 ca15681-10 delay, being Misc.Applications No. 3/07, 4/07, 5/07 and 8/07 came to be dismissed. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows : "The delay condonation Misc.Application No. 3/07, 4/07, 5/07 & 8/07 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs." 3] The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is a common order and the applicant is already a party respondent in this petition being respondent no.4. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not have any objection for the respondent no.4/ applicant being transposed as the petitioner and therefore the Civil Application be allowed. 4] The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the Civil Application. He submitted that the facts in the case of the present petitioner are different from the facts of the applicant s case and that since the proceedings are under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 3 ca15681-10 it would not be permissible to transpose respondent no.4 as the co-petitioner. He submitted that the respondent no.4 ought to have filed a separate petition. Moreover, there would be delay in so far as the applicant is concerned, in challenging the impugned order and this cannot be done in a circuitous manner by merely making an application of transposing as petitioner by respondent no.4. 5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is noticed that the impugned order is a common order. Moreover, a purshis has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that he has no objection if the original respondent no.4 in the petition is transposed as a co- petitioner. Considering the above and in the interest of justice I deem it appropriate to allow the Civil Application. 6] Civil Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". 7] It is made clear that the respondent no.4 will on transposition as co-petitioner be required to pay the necessary Court 4 ca15681-10 fees. The contention of the respondent in so far as the delay is concerned, is left open to be considered at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition. (A.A.SAYED,J.) umg/ca15681-10