1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6212 OF 2008 (FOR INTERVENTION) IN FIRST APPEAL NO.155 OF 2009 1. Shri.Jayesh Shivajibhai Patel 2. Shri.Bharat Shivajibhai Patel 3. Shri.Shivaji Madhukar Pawar ...Applicants/ Intervenors V/s. Shri.Digvijay Khimji Swali ....Appellant/ Orig.Plff AND 1.Kum.Pramila Khimji Swali 2.Sau.Devyaniben Mohanbhai Patel 3.Sau.Jassiben Waljibhai Patel 4.Shri.Purushottam Khimji Swali ...Respondents ===== Mr.Priten Killedar, Advocate for Applicant-Intervenor Ms.Smita Gaidhani, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.P.S.Dani, adv.for appellant in First Appeal. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 19thJune 2009. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed by the Intervenors for joining themselves as appellants alongwith the appellant, the original plaintiff. The appellant claims to be the owner of the suit property alongwith respondent no.4. Both had entered into agreement of sale dated 4th December, 1989 with respondents no.1 to 2 3 whereunder the consideration payable to the vendors was of Rs.19 lacs and two flats in the building to be constructed on the land. Apparently, there have been some difficulties in the development of the suit property because of existence of the tenants therein. Appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.529 of 1992 demanding his half share in the suit property without asking for partition. In the alternative, he sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale with respondents no.1 to 3. By the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1997 the trial court dismissed the suit which judgment is challenged in the present appeal proceedings. 2. The applicant herein is the son of one of the tenants on the suit property against whom the decree of eviction has been passed by the competent court. He claims to have purchased the share of appellant in the suit property by virtue of deed of conveyance dated 20th May, 2006. Armed with its deed of conveyance he seeks to be joined as party appellant to the appeal. 3. In the application for intervention, applicant claims that he was unaware of the filing of the suit, decision in the suit and also filing of the present appeal. These averments made in the application are falsified by the deed of conveyance in favour of the applicant. Recital 5 of the deed of conveyance clearly makes a reference to Special Civil Suit No.524 of 1992, its dismissal and 3 filing of the appeal against the order of dismissal in this court. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 that they had issued public notice on 1st September, 2006 regarding their rights in the suit property and also the present litigation. Despite this public notice, the applicant purchased the appellant’s share in the suit property on 1 st September, 2006. Since property has been purchased pending the litigation, the transaction is subject to the rights of respondents no.1 to 3 under the agreement of sale in their favour who are also in possession of the suit property. 4. The question to be considered now is whether the presence of the Intervenors is required in the proceedings alongwith the appellant. Order 22 Rule 10 CPC gives a discretion to the court in cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit to allow a person in whose favour the interest has been created or devolved to continue the proceedings. The present application is not for continuing the proceedings in the place of the appellant but only to join the appellant. The presence of the applicant alongwith the appellant is not required for consideration of the questions arising in the appeal proceedings. Hence, the application is dismissed. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.) 4