1 wp8886.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2010 Lalji Ramnath Chavan ... Petitioner v/s. Ramdeoram D. Vishwakarma & anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sureshkumar J. Panicker for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Subramaniam for respondent no.1. Mr. Manojkumar Upadhyay for rspondent no.2. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 21, 2011. P.C. The petitioner-plaintiff challenges the order dated 8th October, 2010 vide which the Chamber Summons No. 9/2009 in Long Cause Suit No. 4802/1998 filed by the respondent has been allowed. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents no. 1 herein. 2. The Respondent No. 2 herein filed an application for impleading him 2 wp8886.10.sxw as party defendant to the suit contending therein that the plaintiff and the defendant have filed a suit with collusion. It has further been submitted that they have filed consent terms in CRA No. 1050/1998 vide which the Court Receiver was appointed. It is the contention of the respondent no. 2 that the part of the suit land which belongs to Government has been allotted to the respondent no. 2 for the construction of the school. 3. The learned trial Court upon perusal of the material placed on record has found that subject matter of the suit is C.T.S. No. 6A, Survey No. 253. The learned trial Court has also perused the possession receipt executed by the City Civil Officer, Goregaon which prima-facie establish that the possession of the Survey No. 253 C.T.S. No. 6A admeasuring 1385 sq. meters has been handed over to respondent no. 2 on 20th November, 2009. 4. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent no. 2 was a proper party in proceedings pending before it. It can thus be seen that the learned trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons for allowing the application of the respondent no. 2. No perversity is noticed therein to warrant interference. Hence, rejected. 3 wp8886.10.sxw 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of interim order for a period of 8 weeks. 6. Taking into consideration that there was interim order operating, the same is extended for a period of four weeks from today. Certified copy expedited. (B.R. GAVAI, J)