(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 694 OF 2011 The Union of India, Ministry of Defence through the Military Estate Officer, .. Petitioner Hyderabad Circle, Secunderabad, (Original defendant Cantonment (A.P.). no.1) versus Mannalal s/o. Hiralal Agrawal, .. Respondents Deceased through L.Rs., (Nos.1 to 9 - Suryakalabai w/o. Mannalal Agrawal, Original plaintiffs, Age : 80 years, Nos.10 to 13 - Occupation : Household, Original defendant R/o. Bohari Kahala, Sarafa, Nos.4 to 7, and Aurangabad, Nos.14 & 15 - and others. Original defendant nos.2 and 3) ....................... Mr. N.S. Choudhary, Standing Counsel, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. By keeping reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court, in the case of Raghunath Dass Harakchand Vs. Purushotham Dass (AIR 1936 Madras 714), Mr. N.S. Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner / Union of India, contends that the appellate court erred in permitting respondent nos.2 to 9 to be added as plaintiffs in the matter. He states that the application is filed almost after 16 years of the alleged transaction. The transaction is void under the provisions of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937. He has also invited attention to the impugned order and also to the application filed for the said purpose. 3. Perusal of application filed before the appellate court, vide Exhibit 32, by respondent nos.2 to 9, shows that during the pendency of suit and claiming to be purchasers, they filed application before the trial court for similar relief. It was rejected and they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 8257/2005. During the pendency of that petition, Civil Suit itself was dismissed. Because of that dismissal, their petition (3) also came to be dismissed but they were given liberty to move appropriate application before the appellate court. Accordingly, they moved the application at Exhibit 32. 4. The fact, that they claimed to have purchased the land vide sale deed dated 8-6-1989 is not in dispute at this stage. While allowing their prayer, appellate court has also recognized restriction on their role and has accordingly noted the same in paragraph 9 of its order. 5. I, therefore, do not find that any prejudice is caused to the present petitioner. 6. With liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order again, after appeal is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, the present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp694