1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2010 (Manjitsingh Kripalsingh Bhatia vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 08, 2010. Heard Shri Vishwarupe, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 15.01.2010 and stayed further proceedings in Appeal No. 63 of 2006. Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP is appearing for respondent No. 1 and seeking time as instructions are still awaited. The respective counsel appearing for other respondents are not present. Shri Vishwarupe, learned counsel states that present Respondents No. 7 & 8 have filed appeal No. 62 of 2006 before Additional Commissioner impugning order of Collector whereby area of field in question has been reduced. However, those respondents have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal further as they have sold the field to present petitioner on 23.09.2009. After purchase of suit field, the petitioner moved an application seeking leave to amend appeal memo and also for getting himself substituted in place of 2 respondents No. 7 & 8 as appellant. Though the application has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner by observing that the doctrine of lis pendense is applicable, during hearing it has transpired that the application moved by present petitioner is for amendment of appeal memo filed by Respondents No. 7 & 8. Thereafter he has filed a pursis and stated that said application should also be treated as application for substituting applicant as appellants in that appeal. It is obvious that appropriate application for substituting appellants and in any case for getting themselves impleaded has not been moved before the Additional Commissioner. Until and unless such application is filed and allowed, the petitioner does not get status and locus to move any application for amendment of memo of appeal. The said memo of appeal was preferred by Respondents No. 7 & 8 and not by him. It, however, follows that no Civil Suit in relation to any title in dispute, questioning the sale transaction is pending between the parties and hence Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act has prima facie no application. I am not concluding the matter as the learned counsel for the other respondents have chosen not to appear and AGP is still awaiting instructions. The conclusion however follows that the application of mind by Respondent No. 1 in impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 16.12.2009 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to 3 move an application for getting himself impleaded in Appeal No. 62 of 2009. If such an application is allowed and he is impleaded in the appeal as appellant, he can move an application seeking amendment in the appeal memo. With this liberty to the petitioner, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.