1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4022/2009. Dattatraya R. Pattiwar -: versus :- Sambhashiv Ramlu Pattiwar and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.V. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Though respondent no.1 [original owner] is served, he has chosen not to appear. Shri S.V. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent no.2, states that respondent no.2 has purchased the property from respondent no.1 before the institution of the suit. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner points out that by the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 passed below Exh.59 in Special Civil Suit No.3/2001, 2 Companies who have purchased the property from present respondent no.1 on 27.02.2009 have not been allowed to be joined as party defendants. He states that the trial Court had earlier granted temporary injunction which was challenged by the present respondent no.2 before this Court and this 2 Court vacated it in view of the undertaking by respondent no.2, that they would not claim any relief of equity in the matter. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for respondent states that the order of temporary injunction was not vacated on the ground of any undertaking given by respondent no.2 and the undertaking is an independent facet which has no bearing on the vacation of temporary injunction. The circumstances therefore show that respondent no.1 [original owner] has chosen not to appear before this Court. Present respondent no.2 has already transferred the suit property on 27.02.2009 to two Companies. The fact of vacation of temporary injunction by this Court needs to be looked into and considering all these aspect, it will be in the interest of justice if the two companies [subsequent purchasers] are permitted to be added as party defendants. Accordingly application at Exh.59 moved by the petitioner is allowed and the two purchasers from respondent no.2 on 27.02.2009 are allowed to be joined as party defendants. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.