1 wp 7546.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7546 OF 2010 Jadhav Nathu Patil .. Petitioner Versus Jaychand Dalichand Jain .. Respondent Shri S. U. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri J. R. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner had filed simplicitor suit for injunction against the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant alienated the suit property. The petitioner filed an application for adding the purchasers as party defendants. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that no cause of action is shown against the purchasers. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present petition. 2. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 wp 7546.10 submits that, the purchasers have stepped into the shoes of original defendant, as such, they are necessary parties to the suit. The learned counsel further contends that in the plaint also the prayer is made that the defendant or anybody claiming through the defendant should be restrained. As they are purchasers, are necessary parties. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Aliji Momonji Vs. Lalji Mavji reported in 1997 (1) Bom.C.R. 464, so also on judgment in a case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported in 2005(3) Mh. L. J. 01 and contends that the order passed by Trial Judge is erroneous. 3. It is not disputed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for simplicitor injunction. The defendant has alienated the property and the proposed parties are the purchasers. In an application for addition of party no avernments have been made by the plaintiff that those proposed parties are obstructing in the possession of the plaintiff. A relief of injunction is a relief in personam. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others referred supra would not apply in as much as, in the said case it was a suit for specific performance of contract. 3 wp 7546.10 4. The plaintiff would get a cause of action to file a suit against the proposed parties or to make a prayer of similar nature only if the cause of action against the proposed parties arises. As no avernments are made in the application spelling out the cause of action against the proposed parties and as no relief is claimed against the proposed party, no error has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no other as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11