:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1646 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1646 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1646 OF 2008 A.M. Kallan ..Petitioner V/s Norsca Wassodew & Ors ..Respondents. Mr.B.R. Vishwakarma for the petitioner Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel i/b Ashish Naik for for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 4TH JUNE, 2008 : 4TH JUNE, 2008 : 4TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 21-1-2008, whereby the application of respondent No.5 to bring himself on record in the pending suit has been allowed. 2. The application by the respondent/orig. applicant is filed on the basis of an agreement for sale which is a registered document executed between the original-plaintiffs and the respondent No.5. Para 3 of the said agreement for sale specially states thus- " the purchaser shall be entitled to step into :2: the shoes of the Vendors and get themselves impleaded as Plaintiffs in place instead of the vendors in R.A.& E. Suit No.218/558 of 2005 and prosecute the said suit....." 3. The petitioner’s case is that the title has not in fact passed on respondent No.5 and therefore, he has no right to prosecute the suit and come on record. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned order. The petitioner will get an opportunity in the trial Court to dispute the title and at this stage in view of the registered agreement of sale the contention of the petitioner that Application of the the respondent No.5 to implead him as party-plaintiff ought not to have been allowed cannot be accepted. 5. The impugned order does not warrant any interference and the petition stands dismissed. 6. The record and proceeding be returned to the trial Court. :3: ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)