IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 24 OF 2009 MR. NICOLAU LORENCO PEREIRA AND 7 ORS., ... Appellants Versus MRS. MARIA SONIA ELVIRA ANUNCIACAO VIEGAS LEMOS AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Shri M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Shri J. Abreu Lobo, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 26th March, 2009 P.C.:- This is Defendants' appeal and is directed against Order dated 10-2-2009 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa. Heard Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the said Defendants. Plaintiff No.1 had filed a suit in the year 1996 for declaration and other reliefs in respect of a property surveyed under No.104/1 and it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel that Plaintiff No.1 had also began with her evidence in the suit. Plaintiff No.1 sold the said property by deed dated 4-1-2007 to Plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 filed an application to implead as a co-Plaintiff in the suit and the said application has been allowed. Plaintiff No.1 had no objection for impleading Plaintiff No.2 as a co-Plaintiff. The Defendants too had no objection but their only contention was that Plaintiff No.2 ought not to be added as a co-Plaintiff but ought to be substituted in place of Plaintiff No.1. That contention has been rejected by the learned trial Court. Whether Plaintiff No.2 is impleaded as a co-Plaintiff under one or the other provisions of C.P.C. is immaterial. Needless to say, Plaintiff No.2 would be bound by the case pleaded by Plaintiff No.1 since he has been joined as a co-Plaintiff with the consent of Plaintiff No.1. The impugned Order is not opposed to any other provision of C.P.C., and is otherwise discretionary, and considering the facts it cannot be interfered with. Appeal disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.