1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7565 OF 2011 Sanjay Babuji Dhumal ...Petitioner Versus Shivlal Hiralal Rana & Another ...Respondents Mr.Prathamesh Gokhale for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent no.1 agreed to purchase property, more particularly described in agreement dated 7th September, 2004 from the respondent no.2. As the respondent no.2 did not execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.2157 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The said suit is still pending. The present petitioner herein filed application at Exhibit 17 praying that he be permitted to intervene and be joined as party defendant. This 2 application was decided by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by his Order dated 22nd March, 2011. The said application at Exhibit 17 has been rejected. Against this order dated 22nd March, 2011, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner Across the bar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had provided funds to the respondent no.1 to pay the consideration to the respondent no.2 and that the entire consideration has been paid by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that his presence in the suit is of utmost importance to decide the rival contentions between the parties. He criticized the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2011. 3. I have considered the record. I am of the view that the learned trial judge has rightly passed the order dated 22nd March, 2011 and rejected the application. Even if the stand of the petitioner is accepted for a moment that the petitioner supplied funds to the respondent no.1 to purchase the property, at the most, it can be said that the petitioner is a money lender for the respondent no.1. If the 3 respondent no.1 fails to repay the said amount it is open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding to recover the said money. The petitioner cannot interfere in the right of the respondent no.1 to secure conveyance from the respondent no.2. In my view, the learned trial Judge has taken correct view of the matter and no interference is required in the said order. 4. Hence petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in respect of property covered by Special Civil Suit No.2157 of 2008, there are as many as three suits and he prayed that all the three suits be clubbed together. It will not be possible to accede to this request of the petitioner, in the absence of the other persons who are litigants in the said suits. The petitioner is free to make an application to the concerned court for clubbing the three suits together. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)