1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.93 OF 2010 Harish Damodar Murarka ...Petitioner vs. Aftab Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Jai Kanade for the petitioner Mr.H.S.Thakkar for respondent no.16 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. By the impugned order, 6 th respondent has been directed to be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner against the 1 st to 5 th respondents. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order. She submitted that the impugned order is very cryptic. She pointed out that the 6 th respondent is the purchaser of the suit property from the 1 st respondent (1 st defendant) during the pendency of the suit. She submitted that the transaction is hit by principles of lis pendens and in any event there is abundant material on record to show that the transaction entered into by the 6 th respondent is not bonafide. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another [(2004) 1 SCC 191]. She submitted that unless it is shown that the alienation during the pendency of the suit was bonafide, 2 the purchaser cannot claim right to implead him as a party. She submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and the case made out by the petitioner that the transfer in favour of the 6 th respondent is not bonafide has not been at all considered by the trial Court. 4 I have considered the submissions. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court is not powerless to implead a purchaser who has taken the suit property during the pendency of the suit from one of the defendants though the transaction is hit by the principles of lis pendens. By the impugned order the purchaser of the suit property through the original first defendant has been directed to be impleaded as a party defendant. The prayer in the suit is for declaration that the petitioner and the 2 nd to 5 th respondents are the owners and are in possession of the suit land. 5 There is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court though the order may not be happily worded. Writ Petition is rejected. 6 Hearing of the suit is expedited and the concerned Court will conclude the trial before end of the year 2010. JUDGE