1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3912/2009 ( Smt. Sonali Durugkar -: versus :- 1.Pankaj Vithaldas Tapadiya and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2 0 0 9. Heard Shri A.D. Vyawahare, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.V. Purohit, learned counsel for respondents. The petitioner before this court is plaintiff and original defendant nos. 1 to 5 are the persons who had agreed to sale property to him. Defendant no.6 is another person in whose favour those defendants are alleged to have executed similar agreement. Respondent before this Court approached Trial Court and sought leave to be impleaded as party defendants. That application has been allowed on 17.08.2009 and that order is impugned in the present petition. By placing reliance upon the judgment reported at 2007 [2] CLJ 427 (Sanjay Verma .vrs. Manik Roy and others ), learned counsel for petitioner contends that because of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, respondents need not to be added and could not be added as parties. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, state 2 that the original defendants no.1 to 6 are not parties to the said Writ Petition. He states that the defendant nos. 1 to 5 have agreed to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff, however, they had executed sale deed of very same property in favour of three more persons, from whom the present respondents have purchased it. He therefore, states that the impugned judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner, is not at all relevant. The factual data placed before this Court in his arguments by the learned counsel for respondents is not in dispute. It is therefore, apparent that the defendants no.1 to 5 are not contesting the suit but are colluding with the petitioner / plaintiff. This was done after executing two sale deeds of same property and also after allegedly executing an agreement for sale therefor in favour of defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 had also filed suit for specific performance which she ultimately has withdrawn. It is therefore, apparent that when prima facie a case of collusion between the plaintiff and original owners [defendant nos. 1 to 5] is made out, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act may not have any application. Trial Court has considered the necessary material and has passed the impugned order. Hence in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.