1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3910 OF 2009 Smt.Dimakhabai Bhikha Gaikwad and another ...Petitioners vs. Smt.Janabai Bhikha Gaikwad & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the petitioners Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. On an application made by the 1 st defendant (1 st respondent), by the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has permitted the said defendant to carry out the amendment to the written statement. By the amendment, the said defendant desires to plead that he has tranferred the suit property to a third party and the suit is not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first defendant hads admitted in the application for amendment that the transfer has been effected during the pendency of the suit. He submitted 2 that therefore the transfer is hit by lis pendens and therefore, the issue regarding non joinder of the necessary parties does not arise. 3 All that has been done by the trial court is that the amendment was allowed by which the 1 st defendant has been permitted to amend the written statement. Merely because a contention is allowed to be raised regarding non joinder of necessary parties, by grant of amendment, the said contetnion has not been accepted by the court. The petitioner can always point out that the transfer has been effected in favour of the third party during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the transfer is hit by lis pendens. 4 Subject what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE