1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.449 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.203 OF 2007 Manju R. Jain ....Plaintiff V/s. Arvind K. Bandekar ....Defendant And Amar H. Bijlani & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Kirit Mody with Ms.Aruna Mehta i/b S. Pathak & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Yogesh Adhia for Defendant No.1. Mr.G.S. Rao i/b M/s.Lex Consultus for Defendant No.2. Mr.Sandeep Jinsewalle for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 9 to 13. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for specific performance of a development agreement dated 22.8.2000. Admittedly the agreement has never been implemented. Defendant No.1 executed a conveyance dated 22.12.2005 in favour of Defendant No.2. The same was disclosed when an application for interim reliefs was filed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff took out a Chamber Summons for impleading Defendant No.2 and seeking reliefs against it. The Chamber Summons was allowed. Thereafter, the Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for interim reliefs against both the Defendants. In the Notice of Motion, the Defendants disclosed that various flats had been 2 sold between April, 2008 and November, 2008 in the building constructed upon the suit property. It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that these agreements with the flat purchasers have been entered into in collusion with Defendant No.2. The present Chamber Summons has therefore been taken out to implead the flat purchasers. 2. I have by a judgment dated 3.11.2009 in Chamber Summons No.853 of 2008 in Suit No.2873 of 2007,M/s.Rukhana Enterprises v/s. M/s.Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and others and M/s.Swastik Realtors held that a subsequent purchaser can be impleaded in a suit for specific performance. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is essential to implead the flat purchasers for their own protection. There is much to be said on the merits of the case, especially as to whether the specific performance ought to be granted even if the development agreement is upheld. Moreover, in the event of the agreement being upheld, the further question would arise of considerable substance as to whether specific performance ought to be granted or not. This defence can also be advanced by the flat purchasers. In view of a lis-pendence having been filed on 15.2.2007 i.e. before the agreements between the Defendants and flat purchasers any decree if passed, may adversely affect the flat purchasers in the execution proceedings without their having had an opportunity of opposing the suit. 4. Mr.Mody clarifies that Exhibit-M refer to in the proposed amendment is Exhibit-A to the affidavit in support of the Chamber 3 Summons. 5. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The amendments shall be carried out within four weeks from today.