1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7217 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Rahul Vijay kumar Kopale & another ..Petitioners. Versus Chandrakant s/o Hiraman Bhujange and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 17/11/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge this order dated 10th August, 2009 by which application filed by present petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in a suit filed by the respondent no.1 came to be rejected. 2. The respondent no.1 has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against respondent no.2. In the said proceeding, the applicants had filed an application for joining them as 2 party defendants. The application came to be rejected against present petitioners. 3. Shri Salunke the learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are in possession of the suit land and as such they are necessary parties. He therefore, submitted that, the learned lower court grossly erred in rejecting the application. 4. The learned trial court while rejecting the application found that the suit was filed by plaintiff in the year 2000. The said suit is filed on the basis of transaction entered into between the plaintiff and defendants prior to filing the suit. It has further been found that, the claim of the present petitioners was on the basis of transaction taken place in the year 2006. It is thus clear that the claim of the present petitioners is on the basis of the transaction which has taken place during subsistence of the suit. It is therefore, governed by the doctrine of lis pendence u/s 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. In any case, the plaintiff is domenous litus in a suit. The trial court has therefore not erred in rejecting the application of the present petitioners. No case is made out to exercise jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. The petition is dismissed. [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE tsk/WP7217.09