1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3393/2008 Ashok H. Waghade and ors. ..vs.. Tulsiram B. Waghade and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri K. R. Lambat, Adv. For petitioner. Shri S. B. NinaweAdv. for respondents 2 to 5. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Shri K. R. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S. B. Ninawe, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5. Shri Randive, who appears for respondent No.1, is not present. Advocate Lambat has made two grievances. Firstly, he states that respondent No.1 had suppressed the fact of sale while filing the suit and without disclosing the same, he instituted suit for partition and separate possession. The second contention is that after the petitioner's filed an application for dismissal of suit on that account of prayer for amendment of plaint was moved. By that amendment, the subsequent purchasers(present respondents no.2 to 5) were sought to be added as party defendants. He argues that the trial Court has erroneously allowed the application moved for joining the 2 purchasers as party. Because of that, the trial court has over- looked the grievance made in application below exhibit 93 for dismissal of suit. Advocate Ninawe states that the purchasers have purchased the property of respondent No.1 bonafide and the respondent No.1 is subsequently keeping away from the matter. He points out that the suit is of the year 2002 needs to be decided expeditiously. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the Court below has rightly permitted the subsequent purchasers to come on record so that the controversy is adjudicated and settled finally once for all. Advocate Lambat has pointed out that the petitioners are in possession of property allegedly sold by respondent No.1 to respondents no. 2 to 5. The effect of this fact, if any, can be looked into while trying the civil suit. However, one fact is apparent and it is that the present respondent No.1 did not approach the Court with clean hands. He did not disclose the sale of property by him to present respondents no. 2 to 5, while instituting suit for partition and separate possession. In these circumstances, application below exhibit 93 filed by the present petitioner for dismissal of suit is kept alive for its consideration at the stage of delivery of judgment and after the parties record their evidence. It is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in its common order below exhibits 93 & 95 on 3 28/03/2002 shall not come in the way while adjudicating the prayer made in application below exhibit 93. Subject to this, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Andurkar.