1 wp11010.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11010 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. Heard Advocate Shri. V.R. Dhorde for petitioners. Petitioners moved an application for intervention in a suit for specific performance, contending that the suit property was ancestral property and they had share/ interest in it. Hence, no decree could have been passed behind their back. Trial Court has rejected that application. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners states that in plaint itself, the respondent no.2-plaintiff has urged that the suit property is ancestral property of respondent no.1-original defendant. 3. Suit is for specific performance and it is apparent that when the petitioners are not parties to the suit, judgment and decree therein can not bind them. 2 wp11010.10 Application of mind by trial Court, therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 13.01.2011 gas/wp11010.10