1 wp440.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.440 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate holding for Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for petitioner. 1. Contention is Exhibit-300 is rejected and therefore, plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved. Exhibit-300 is filed as Exhibit-D with this petition. By this application Exhibit-300, petitioner-plaintiff seeks leave to join subsequent purchasers as defendants. 2. The impugned order at Exhibit-E (Page 50 of Writ Petition) mentions at two places that order below Exhibit-300 should be noted. It also shows that contention of otherside is looked into and Court found that plaintiff (petitioner) was filing document only because of objection 2 wp440.11 taken by defendant No.11 while giving say to Exhibit-300. It is also noticed that had there been no such objection by same defendant, plaintiff would not have taken pains to file present application for production to substantiate the contention in Exhibit-300. Page 50 is not order below Exhibit-300. It appears to be an order below Exhibit-302 whereby petitioner sought leave to produce documents. Order at page 42 appears to be order passed below Exhibit-300 and it shows that the say filed by defendant No.11 is taken on record and so far as other defendants are concerned, as there was no say, matter has proceeded further in their default. Exhibit-300 is therefore, not disposed of. Petition is misconceived and hence, it is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE 20.01.2011 sut/Jan11/wp440.11