1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10871 OF 2009 Shivaji K. Munje & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Sunanda Manohar Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sachin Gite for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. A suit for partition was filed by the 1st respondent against 2nd to 18th respondents in respect of various properties described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The petitioners are not parties to the suit. The petitioners made an application at Exhibit 201 in the said suit praying that the 1st respondent be directed to implead them as parties. In the said application it was contended that the ancestors of the petitioner were agricultural tenants in respect of some of the suit properties and a proceeding for fixation of price under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was pending. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that a certificate has not been issued in favour of the petitioners by the authorities under the said Act of 1948. The said earlier application was rejected on 30th January 2006. 2. The petitioners filed a fresh application at Exhibit 231 praying for the same 2 relief on the ground that under the provisions of the said Act of 1948 they have become deemed purchasers of some of the suit properties. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected mainly on the ground that earlier application at Exhibit 201 has been rejected. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that rejection of the earlier application will not come in the way of the petitioners as the subsequent application has been filed after the Tribunal has fixed the purchase price. He, therefore, submitted that the application ought to have been considered on merits. 4. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I find that the petitioners are neither necessary not proper parties to the suit. The petitioners purport to claim title as deemed purchasers under the provisions of the said Act of 1948. In any event, the decree passed in the suit for partition will not bind the petitioners. 5. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)