(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8458 OF 2010 Chandrakant s/o. Apparao Ghugare, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Azad Chowk, Latur, .. Petitioner District : Latur. (Original plaintiff) versus 1. Vijaykumar s/o. Shivkumar Rachatte, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Business, R/o. Azad Chowk, Latur, District : Latur. 2. Annapurnabai w/o. Prabhuappa Rachatte, Age : 94 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Vijaykumar Rachatte, M.I.D.C. Road, Shrinagar, Latur, District : Latur. 3. Sattar Saheblal Shaikh, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Business, R/o. Osmanpura, Latur, District : Latur. (2) 4. Javed Gulam Mohammad Pathan, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Take Nagar, Latur, .. Respondents District : Latur. (Original defendants) ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.C. Ghode, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 4 served by paper publication. (Both absent). Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Hon, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, holding for Adv. Ghode, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. Urgunde, for respondent no.3. (3) 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. Respondent nos.2 and 4 were served with notice before admission, by paper publication. However, they have chosen not to file appearance or argue the matter personally. In this view of the matter, notice upon Rule on the said respondents is dispensed with. 4. The trial court permitted the petitioner / plaintiff to implead subsequent purchaser in the suit. Again because of subsequent transfer, similar application was made and the successor officer did not allow it after noticing that provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protected the petitioner / plaintiff sufficiently. 5. Adv. Mr. Hon, for the petitioner, has relied upon judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at 2005(5) Bom.C.R. 690, in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & another Vs. Farida Khatoon & another, to urge that in such situation, addition of subsequent purchasers is found to be desirable by the Hon. Apex Court, to avoid further unnecessary complications. (4) 6. Adv. Mr. Bedre, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. Urgunde, for respondent no.3, have supported the impugned order. Both of them urged that property claimed in the suit and property forming subject matter of transfer is entirely different. It is further urged that as Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is squarely attracted in the present matter, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner / plaintiff by not adding subsequent purchaser. They have placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon. Apex Court reported at 1997(1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 539, in the case of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and others, to substantiate this contention. 7. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that before subsequent purchasers have been permitted to be added, present respondent no.1 was the only defendant when suit came to be filed and other respondents before this Court are allowed to be added thereafter as they claim to be subsequent purchasers. These subsequent purchasers have again sold the property to third person and prayer to implead them was made by the petitioner / plaintiff. By the impugned order, that prayer has been rejected. 8. When defence of present respondents, that property disposed of by them is not suit property, is being looked into, it (5) is apparent that the permission to implead those third persons is essential to avoid further complications and confusion. The situation is taken care of by two judgments of Hon. Apex Court reported at (i) 2007 AIR (SC) 1062, in the case of Dhanalakshmi & others Vs. P. Mohan & others, and (ii) Amit Kumar Shaw & another Vs. Farida Khatoon & another (supra). The judgments are delivered after considering provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, provisions of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. As I find addition of such third parties and present respondents are not put to any prejudice thereby, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to implead third person as party. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-8-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 104 in Special Civil Suit No. 2/2006, is quashed and set aside. Exhibit 104 before the trial court is allowed. The trial court shall permit the petitioner to implead the purchasers as named therein, as party defendants, and proceed further in accordance with law. (6) 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8458