1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3109 of 2011 Vilas Anandrao Patil ..VS.. Pandharinath Shambhaji Bansod through LRs and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.S. Bhattad. Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 12 th September, 2011. Heard Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 20.11.2010 allowing the application filed by the the respondent no. 4 and directing the petitioner to join the respondent no. 4 as defendant no. 4 to the suit. The trial court rightly observed that the it was not disputed that an auction-sale was conducted by the respondent no.3 on 28.3.2008 and the respondent no.4 had purchased the suit property in the auction by depositing the entire sale consideration with the respondent no.3 as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It was the case of the respondent no.4 that the vacant and peaceful possession of the property was handed over to the respondent no.4 after the purchase of the property. In these circumstances, since the 2 respondent no.4 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value, the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.4 and directed the petitioner to join the respondent no.4 as party defendant no.4 to the civil suit. The order passed by the trial court on 20.11. 2010 is just and proper and does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. So also, the consequential order dated 23.2.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for review of the order also calls for no interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan