1 wp 9186.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9186 OF 2011 Kailash Madhavrao Napate and another .. Petitioners Versus Santosh Trimbak Shinde and others .. Respondents Shri H. V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri H. V. Patil, the learned counsel for petitioners. The learned counsel submits that petitioners had filed an application for addition as party in the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 4. The present petitioners are purchasers of the suit property from the respondent No. 4 and have every right to be impleaded. The respondent No. 4 did not take any steps in the appeal and so the appeal came to be dismissed in default. No orders were passed on the application filed by the petitioners for addition of party. The learned counsel contends that without deciding the application of the petitioners, 2 wp 9186.11 the said order dismissing the appeal in default could not have been passed. According to the learned counsel the rights of the petitioners are being infringed and the petitioners have right to contest the matter. Even otherwise, the petitioners have right to claim the share of their predecessor. In view of that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 2. The present petitioners were not added as party in the appeal. They had merely filed an application and before the said application can be adjudicated, the appeal came to be dismissed. In view of that no right is created in the petitioners to challenge the order of dismissal in default. 3. Even otherwise, the petitioners can resort to other remedies available under the law. The petitioners if they are aggrieved party with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, then they can file an appeal with an application for leave to appeal and the Court dealing with the same can consider the said application on its own merits. Even otherwise, the petitioners have got remedy to claim equity in execution proceedings. 3 wp 9186.11 4. In the light of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11