1 WP 6906.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6906 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. M.A.Manjramkar, Advocate for the petitioners. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :27/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present respondent had filed Suit for specific performance against Kalabai. During the pendency of the Suit, the defendant – Kalabai died. The present petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Kalabai. Deceased Kalabai died in the year 2003. The Suit proceeded. Even the present petitioners filed Written Statement. Thereafter, on 24/06/2011 the petitioners moved an application for framing of additional issues. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Manjramkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the name of Ratnabai is mutated 2 WP 6906.2011 in the relevant record after the death of Kalabai. This fact is within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Still said Ratnabai is not made party to the Suit. Even the said Ratnabai is in possession of the property. In view of all these facts, the issues proposed by the petitioners were necessary to be framed. The Court has, on erroneous approach, rejected the said application and has also given the finding that the decision in the Suit would be binding on Ratnabai in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, the observation is erroneous. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 4. Ratnabai has not made any application to be added as a party. At the most, Ratnabai can claim to be the successor of the estate of deceased Kalabai and in a way a legal representative. It is for the plaintiff to take necessary steps in that regard. The Suit was filed against Kalabai, who according to the plaintiff, had executed an agreement. So, the question of necessary parties would not arise at this stage. What would be the effect of the Judgment that would be passed by this Court on Ratnabai, would be a different matter altogether. It will be up to the said Ratnabai to agitate on the same. 5. In view of the above, the application of the petitioners for framing the additional issues need not be 3 WP 6906.2011 entertained. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6906.2011 4 WP 6906.2011