1 W.P.No.7669/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7669 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Ms. Manisha Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. The Respondent has filed a suit for partition, declaration and possession. The present petitioner appeared, contested the suit by filing written statement. On the basis of the same, the issues were framed. The petitioner filed an application for amendment. By virtue of the amendment, the petitioner sought to bring on record the fact about the sale of one of the suit property by the plaintiff to his wife and that wife to be made a party. The said application is rejected. The petitioner also filed an application requesting the Court to frame the issue about the Court fees and whether the plaintiff has properly 2 W.P.No.7669/11 valued the suit property. The Court disposed of the said application by observing that the evidence of the plaintiff has come on record and the said issue will be considered after completion of the evidence i.e. cross-examination of the plaintiff. It shows that the Court has not rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present petition is filed. 3. Ms.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought is necessary as during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has transferred the said house in favour of his wife. These facts are to be brought on record in the written statement. The said transfer is prejudicial to the right of the petitioner. The said amendment does not change the nature of defence. The learned counsel further contends that even the issue about the Court fees and valuation should have been framed. 4. It is a trite law that purchaser pendente lite does not get any interest in the property. The Court has considered various aspects while rejecting the application. The objection in the written statement was sought to be raised about non-joinder of necessary party. A transferee pendente lite is not necessary party, as such the said amendment is of no consequence. With regard to framing of issue about valuation and Court fees, the trial Court has observed that the said issue will be considered after completion of evidence. This shows that the Court has not rejected the case of the petitioner 3 W.P.No.7669/11 about the issue of valuation and Court fees. 5. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.03.10.2011. asp/office/wp7669.11 4 W.P.No.7669/11