1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.420/2008 in Writ Petition No.1829/2008 M/s. Shewalkar Developers Limited and others vs. Shri Gopal s/o Keshaolal Fulsunge and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande And Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. Dated : 30th January, 2009. Heard Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent no.2. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 8.10.2008 passed by learned Single Judge, by which Writ Petition No.1829/2008 filed against an order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant nos. 1 to 12, has been dismissed. Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants 1 to 12 have purchased the property from the appellant no.13 and as such they be substituted in place of respondent no.13 in the pending proceedings. Mr. Dhatrak submitted that no case is made out by the 2 appellants for interference by this Court with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, after considering several authorities of the Apex Court including the judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar Sarewgee v. Purbanchal Estates (P)Ltd.: (2006) 9 SCC 1999 has held that bringing a lis pendens transferee on record is not a matter of right but is in the discretion of the Court. The learned Single Judge has further held that since the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are pending, it would not be proper to allow the appellants to substitute in place of those persons against whom the proceedings are pending. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.2 we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Mr. Lalwani states that there are statements in the impugned order which are not factually correct. Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that this is factually correct and respondent no.2 will file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for speaking to minutes. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the petition cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, Mr. Dhatrak has fairly submitted that he will have no objection, if the appellants 1 to 12 are permitted to be added before the trial Court to which the appellants have not agreed. The conduct of the appellants clearly dis-entitle them from any discretionary relief. Therefore, we 3 do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the conduct of the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that this is fit case in which costs deserves to be saddled on the appellants. We quantify the costs at Rs. 5000/- (Rs. five thousand only). The appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent no.2. The costs shall be deposited in the trial court within four weeks. Liberty to respondent no.2 to withdraw the same. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.