-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 2007 Smt. Rashmi Rajsekhar Panchang and anr. .. Petitioners. Vs Dattu nathu Chandere D/H & ors .. Respondents. Mr R.A.Thorat, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 21.02.08. DATE : 21.02.08. DATE : 21.02.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.11.2006, by which the application filed by respondent no.14 under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. In this application, respondent no.14 had prayed for their impleadment in the suit as defendant, they being a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Mr Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent no.14 claims right in the suit property on the basis of the Memorandum of understanding which cannot be the basis for claiming any legal right in the property and in view thereof respondent no.14 is not a necessary party to the proceedings. The court below, after considering the -2- entire material on record, in paragraph 11 of the impugned order held thus: "11. With due respect, in my opinion, if plaintiff succeeds in a suit for specific performance then in absence of subsequent purchaser as a party, the court will not grant decree of specific performance to enforce a prior contract for sale. It is pertinent to note that present plaintiffs have sought declaration against defendant no.5. Therefore, in order to adjudicate the rights between the parties, in my opinion, the third parties presence is necessary in the suit. At this stage, it cannot be undisputed who will win the case, because the suit is part heard. In case plaintiffs succeed to get the decree of specific performance, certainly there would be obstruction by the third party claiming to be subsequent purchaser or may create hurdle in remedy of injunction. In these circumstances, according to me, to make the decree binding on that person, it is necessary to implead him as a party. Therefore, in my opinion, application deserves to be allowed." After having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the other material placed before me, in my opinion, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference by this court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Moreover, admittedly respondent no.14 has already been added as a party-defendant in the suit. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Hearing of the suit is expedited. -3- (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)