1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7375 OF 2010 Kadar Khan Sher Khan and others ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Shaikh Aftab Ahmed Shaikh Iklakh Ahmed and others ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. J.H. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.R. Barlinge, advocate for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 18 th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16th July, 2010 rendered by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Aurangabad on application (Exh-124) in Special Civil Suit No.304/2006, whereby impleadment of original applicant i.e. respondent no.1 came to be allowed and further his request for amendment of the Plaint was also allowed. The suit filed by the respondent nos.2 to 7 (S.C.S. No.304/2006) is for injunction. The dispute relates to open plot bearing no.8 out of C.T.S. No.11594, admeasuring 466.5 Sq.Mtrs situated at Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. The respondent no.1 filed application seeking his impleadment as 2 plaintiff no.2 alleging that he purchased the suit plot by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.03.2010 during the pendency of the suit and was inducted in possession thereof in pursuance to the said transaction entered into between himself and the plaintiffs. He also sought amendment to the effect that he has purchased the plot and was in possession, and therefore, was entitled to protect his possession under the decree for injunction. His application came to be allowed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that presence of the respondent no.1 (original applicant) was not necessary for final and effectual adjudication of the suit. He contended that the respondent no.1 could not be regarded as necessary party being the purchaser of the suit land. He also argued that the respondent no.1 is bound by decree, which is likely to be passed in the suit and will have no independent right. He would submit that the amendment application could not have been allowed when the respondent no.1 was not necessary party and impleadment ought to have been denied. He referred to "Sarvindar Singh V/s Dalip Singh and others" {1997(1) Civil LJ 1}. As against this, Mr.Barlinge, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 supports the impugned order. 3 4. It is pertinent to notice that the original plaintiffs did not oppose the application for impleadment of third party i.e. subsequent purchaser. The original plaintiffs did not say that the suit plot was not transferred in his favour. They did not object transposition of the third party as plaintiff no.2. It is settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis. If the plaintiffs themselves had no objection for the purposes of addition of the respondent no.1 as third party, ordinarily, such addition could not be refused unless it was found to be sought with ulterior motive. There is no serious dispute about the fact that during pendency of the suit, by virtue of sale deed relied upon by the respondent no.1, the suit plot has been transferred in favour of the respondent no.1 i.e. third party. The assignment of ownership and incidental rights may or may not be binding on the petitioners. That is, however, the subject matter of dispute which has to be resolved after the full dressed trial. The petitioners are not, however, adversely affected due to such addition of the respondent no.1 in the array of the plaintiffs. 5. In Sarvinder Singh (supra), the suit was merely for declaration of right on the strength of will deed and the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was on the ground that the subsequent purchaser may be added as a defendant. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such addition was 4 erroneous because the transferee of the defendant could not have any independent right nor was proper party. In the present case, third party i.e. respondent no.1 is not coming forth as transferee of the defendant but has put forth the claim as transferee of the plaintiffs, and therefore, he sought substitution in array of the plaintiff and that the plaintiffs themselves had no objection to do so. 4. Under the circumstances, the petitioners who are defendants in the suit can not seek any exception and that the impugned order can not be termed as arbitrary and perverse. The Petition is disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp7375. 10