1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2010 M/s. Sawant Constructions and Anr. ...Applicants. v. Balasaheb S. Chavan & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vinod Thaker, adv. for the Applicants. Mr. Kumar Khillare- Power of Attorney of Shri Balasaheb Sadashiv Chavan-in-person-Respondent No.1 present in Court. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 6TH October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondent no.1 in person. Respondent No.1 before the Court is the original plaintiff in S.C.Suit No.551 of 2007. He had entered into an agreement to purchase two flats from the defendant no.1 Gurukripa Constructions, which was represented to be partnership firm of the defendant nos.2 to 9, who are also owners of the land on which construction was to be made. The defendant no.3 Bhagwan Mali, who is one of the owners, had received earnest money as per the said contract. In spite of having received money, construction was not made for long time. Recently, construction has been commenced. 2 Building is almost completed. Suit is filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act for the compliance of the terms of the contract against original defendant nos.1 to 9. A chamber summons no.28 of 2010 was taken out by the plaintiff to implead the present applicants as defendant nos.10 and 11, as they claim to have obtained rights to develop the land from the original defendant nos.2 to 9 and are making the construction. This application was opposed by the present applicants. However, the trial Court allowed that application and directed that the present applicants be impleaded as defendant nos.10 and 11. That order is challenged in the present revision application. 2 The applicants do not dispute that they have entered into contract with the defendant nos.2 to 9 for development of the land. Admittedly, defendant nos.2 to 9 are the owners of the land. According to the plaintiff, defendant nos.2 to 9 were represented to be partners of Gurukrupa Construction and on behalf of the said partnership firm, defendant no.3 Bhagwan Mali had entered into contract with the plaintiff and had also received money. Because of their internal disputes, construction could not be completed and now the present applicants stepped into their shoes by entering into agreement for 3 development. Naturally the applicants take over all the rights and liabilities of the defendant nos.2 to 9, which they had incurred before entering into contract with the present applicants. Present applicants do not claim to be bonafide purchasers of the land without knowledge of contract with the plaintiff. They have entered into agreement for development with the original owners. Therefore, they can not escape from the liability incurred by the owners of the land. In view of this, for the complete adjudication and decision of the matter, it was necessary to implead the present applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. M/s. Kiran Construction Company & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2134 where it was held that if the amendment substantially changed the nature and character of original suit, such amendment is not permissible. In my considered opinion, this authority is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 3 Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4