1 W.P. 9767.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/12/2011. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the respondent. ..................... PER COURT : 1. The present respondent no. 1 has filed Suit for specific performance against respondent nos. 2 and 3. The said Suit was filed on 07/09/2009. The present petitioner filed an application for addition of party on the ground that on 30/10/2010, the petitioner has purchased the property from one Arti Anand Kole, daughter of Shamrao. As the suit property is same, the petitioner claim interest in the suit property and, therefore, seeks addition. The said application is 2 W.P. 9767.2011 rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Suit is filed allegedly on the basis of agreement of sale executed by Shamrao in favour of the plaintiff. The person from whom the present petitioner has purchased the property, is daughter of Shamrao. In view of that, the petitioner is the necessary party as the original defendant no. 1 has filed consenting written statement and the original defendant no. 2 also sold the property to third party. 3. Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that the defendant no. 1 is contesting the matter. More over, the trial Court has considered all the aspects and has rightly rejected the application. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. 4. The factual matrix on record shows that the person from whom the present petitioner has purchased the property is not the party to the Suit. In such circumstances, if any decree is passed by the Court, the same would not bind the present petitioner as the petitioner’s predecessor in title is not party to the Suit. 5. In that light of the matter, no error is committed by the 3 W.P. 9767.2011 Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9767.2011