1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4313/2011 (SUDHAKAR SUKHDEORAO CHAUDHARY VERSUS RAMAJI KISAN BHARSAKHRE & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.A. Marathe, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of the agreement of sale executed by the defendant no.1. It is the case of the petitioner that two persons purchased the suit land from the defendant no.1, hence, it was necessary for the plaintiff-petitioner to join them as a party defendants to the suit. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 09.06.2011, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It is a well settled position of law that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the transferors pendente lite are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. In this view of the matter, the trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for joining the purchasers as parties to the suit for specific performance. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE