1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4112 OF 2008. (DR.DEORAO @ MANIKRAO SITARAMJI DEOTALE & ANR. Vs MANOHAR HARIBHAU DEOTALE ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri J.J.Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2008. 1. There are two orders under challenge in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner to pay second set of court fees within reasonable time. 2. An order allowing application under I Rule 10 of C.P.C. for addition of wife Petitioner No.2 to this petition as party defendant to the suit is under challenge in the present writ petition. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is admitted fact that the agreement, on the basis of which suit for specific performance has been filed, was between the husband and the original plaintiff and was never between the wife of the original defendant and therefore, the application to join wife as party 2 defendant to the suit was liable to be rejected but has been wrongly allowed by the trial Court. Putting another order below Exh.40 under challenge he argued that second amendment application also could not have been allowed by the trial Court. 3. I have seen impugned orders and after hearing Shri Chandurkar, I find that agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance was filed, was between the Respondent and Petitioner No.1 only. Petitioner No.1 himself took the defence that the property agreed to be sold under the agreement was owned by his wife. In view of this defence, taken by Petitioner No.1 himself, respondent prayed for adding his wife i.e. Petitioner No.2 as a party defendant. She may not be a necessary party but she is definitely proper party and it will have to be found out on evidence as to the real nature of the transaction since the husband who entered into agreement of sale now claims that part of the property in question belonged to the wife which is matter of evidence and the Court will have to lift the veil to find out the truth. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order allowing application for addition of party i.e. Petitioner No.2. 3 4. Consequently the application for amendment Exh.40 that has been allowed is in furtherance to the said action of adding wife as defendant to the suit and the pleadings in support of such action which are required to be incorporated. No fault, therefore, also can be found out with the order allowing amendment application. 5. In the result, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, petition dismissed. JUDGE RR.