1 CA1839OF2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1839 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3172 OF 2008 Youth Development Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .. Petitioners Versus Sampatrao Dattatraya Mane and anr ...Respondents And Yeshwant Vilasrao Shinde ....Applicant Mr.Dilip Bodake, for the applicant.. Mr. Amit Borkar, for the petitioner. M r A.M.Kulkarni for original respondent No.3. Shri S.N. Bhosle, AGP for respondent No.4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Bodake, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Borkar, learned counsel for the original petitioner and Mr. Kulkarni, for original respondent No.2. 2. This application is taken out by applicant for intervention in the aforesaid writ petition. Respondent Nos l & 2 are the owners of land survey No.879 admeasuring 5H and 45 R. Respondent No.3 2 CA1839OF2010.sxw obtained loan from the petitioner bank for which respondent Nos 1 & 2 stood as guarantor. In pursuant to recovery certificate u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, l960 (for short called as “the act”), the petitioner got the property of respondent Nos l & 2 attached under the provisions of 107(15) of the Act. The attachment was set aside by the Joint Registrar by passing impugned order and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that he obtained development rights in respect of 3 acres out of survey No.879 admeasuring 5H and 45 R on 22.1.2004 from respondent Nos l & 2 and have thus created interest in the said property. The said property was attached on 5.1.2006 at the instance of the petitioner. The agreement in favour of the applicant by the respondent Nos l & 2 is not seriously disputed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3. In that view of the matter, applicant has some rights in the property belonging to the respondent Nos l & 2 which was initially attached at the instance of the petitioner. In these circumstances I feel that the outcome of the writ petition will affect the applicant’s interest. The applicant, therefore, is entitled to be heard while disposing of the petition. Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks. (R. V. MORE, J.)