1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6100 OF 2009 Baban Ganpat Bhandalkar .. Petitioner versus Baburao Piraji Undare & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.G.Chavan for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for respondent No.1 to 5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd February 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st to 5th respondents. The office noting shows that the 7th respondent has been duly served with the notice. The 6th respondent is reported to be dead. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of Agreement for Sale of immovable property filed an application for amendment as well as for impleading parties. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner desired to incorporate certain averments as regards the transactions effected by the original defendant in respect of the suit property prior to institution of the suit. It is contended that the petitioner came to know about alienations very recently. The prayer is also made for adding transferees as parties. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the suit 2 filed by the petitioner for specific performance of the suit agreement and therefore the trial Court could not have prevented the petitioner from impleading parties and from challenging alienations made by the defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st to 5th respondent supported the impugned order by contending that the proposed amendment was time barred and trial Court was justified in rejecting the said application. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The specific case made out in the application for amendment is that the petitioner recently came to know about the alleged transactions effected by the original defendant. Therefore, certain averments are sought to be added for dealing with the alienations. The transferees are also sought to be impleaded. The petitioner being the plaintiff is dominus litis and therefore, the trial Court could not have prevented the petitioner from adding parties. The petitioner can always invoke section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claiming relief against the transferees. Even if amendment is allowed, all issues including issue of limitation will remain open. The order of impleading parties will take effect from the date on which amendment is allowed and therefore the added defendants can also raise a contention regarding bar of limitation. Hence, petition must succeed and I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and application at Exhibit 28 is allowed. 3 (b) Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. (c) All contentions of the respondents including the contention regarding bar of limitation are expressly kept open which can be agitated by filing a written statement. (d) The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)