( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6429 OF 2009 1. Rajaram Ananta Bhoge 2. Macchindra Ananta Bhoge 3. Gorakh Ananta Bhoge All r/o Bhandewadi, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Geetabai Pandurang Gire (Geetabai Dagdu Bhoge), R/o Nimgaon-Daku, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Jijabai Namdeo Davane 3. Kamal Dhanraj Netke, Nos. 2 and 3 r/o Bargewadi, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.C. Garud, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.V. Gaware, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioners are original plaintiffs. They filed suit (Spl.C.S. No. 17/2007) for declaration that sale-deed dated 27-02-2007 executed by defendant No. 1/respondent No.1 – Geetabai in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3/respondents No. 2 and 3 is illegal, hollow, null and void. They also sought declaration that they were legal representatives of deceased Dagdu Damu Bhoge and as such, were co-sharers of the suit lands. They filed amendment application (Exh-43) alleging that the purchasers i.e. defendants No. 2 and 3 lateron alienated the suit land in favour of third party, to whom they wanted to add as proposed respondent No.4. They further asserted that presence of such subsequent purchaser was necessary because the sale transaction was hit by principle of lis pendence. They also prayed for addition of defendant No.5, who happens to be their uncle. 3. The learned Civil Judge, even before issuing notice to the proposed third parties, passed an order dated 01-07-2009, directing to state whether notice of ( 3 ) lis pendence under section 18 of the Indian Registration Act was issued, without hearing anyone. The application was lateron rejected by the impugned order dated 22-07-2009, by passing following cryptic order. “O No compliance of the above order, hence, application stands rejected.” 4. It is not necessary to consider whether the impugned order is sustainable on touchstone of settled legal principles. Suffice it to say that the impugned order is rendered on merits. The learned Civil Judge should have heard the concerned parties. The notices to the proposed parties ought to have been issued before the application was considered on merits. The course of justice cannot be scuttled in such arbitrary manner. Since the impugned order is rather non-speaking order and rendered in default which could not be treated as fatal in the eye of law, I am of the opinion that the application deserves afresh consideration after issuance ( 4 ) of notices to the proposed third party and giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. The trial Court shall decide the application afresh in the light of above observations. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp6429-09